User talk:Zoe/archive 6

how to revert autmomatically? or you did by hand? -- user_talk:hfastedge

Welcome back. You on Bomis salary now? BF

She does do a lot for Wikipedia. Nope - nobody here is on the Bomis payroll. --mav

I don't even know what "Bomis salary" means. -- Zoe

Bomis is the company that Jimbo owns, which also owns the servers wikipedia runs off of. Koyaanis Qatsi

Lilo & Stitch

Zaminum, is the material from Lilo & Stitch your own work, or is it copied from another source? -- Zoe

Zaminum, I'm still waiting for an answer from you concerning the copyright status of the information you put into Lilo & Stitch. If I don't get an answer soon, I'm going to delete what you put there and write my own article. -- Zoe

Sorry about that delay, I was away for awhile. It`s mine, based on about 6 or so magazine and newspaper articles. The quotes are from those sites, but I`ve done much rewriting to change the page as much as possible. I can find the site addresses if you want to read over the sources. - Zanimum

Hi Zoe,

Yeah, I think the clash of the pretenders bit on the page on Louis-Philippe is relevant on that page because (a) it is only a minor historical bit of info that would be unimportant on a page of the history of France, but (b) it brings out a central feature of the story concerning Louis-Philippe, namely the bitter rivalries between France's two wannabe royal families, with the Charles X vs Louis Philippe clash mirrored in the Chambord vs Paris clash later, as both were 'kings' to whom thrones had been abdicated, both of which never got a chance to sit in them, then squabbling over who would get the throne when it was again on offer in the 1870s. Because Louis Philippe was the last French king, I think a short paragraph or two as a sort of epilogue is important, if only to finish off the story which was finished off within two generations; how, having lost thrones through stupidity earlier, the French legitimists and orleanists (well the legitimists primarily) were too stupid to take it even when if was offered gift-wrapped by the French parliament and people. I think a page on the last king is probably the right place to explain why there was no other. If I was in a biblical mood, I could have written the last line as 'here endeth the monarchy!' JTD

I think this should be in an article about the third Republic.

Ericd

As to the names of the various other royals, I'm afraid I have no idea who wrote things in that way and why. PS: looks like peace may have broken out on the Irish famine page. About bloody time! :-) JTD 04:14 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC) (Except there isn't a Third Republic page, Ericd', which there should be. (After being ambushed three times this week on pages I'd written by fanatics (some of them anonymous) and threatened with reversions (and on occasion just threatened!) I'm not quite in the mood to do another 'big' page yet, and the Third Republic would have to be one big page!) (At least not until I'm off the valium!!! :-) JTD 04:41 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe deeds speak. mav is starry eyed over poeple who have declared their phd on their user page. He is too young to know that phd's come on a continuom. Oral cultures differentiate. mav is experiencing prejudice I stand by my record. the fuel that mav adds to the fires. mav doesn't work smartly. you have been arrond to know that mav can be mistaken. If I don't have enough boo with you that is too bad. npov does not depend on popularity: that would be a logical history.

mav is part of a disordered unregulated militia. He fans the flames as often, as he put out fires in talk, He is using the wrong metaphor for his persoanality type. Something is happening and sysysop mav is on the wrong side of histories.

I choose to post anonomously appeals to authority are a logical fallacy. If we are all phds then we have to find some other mathod and that is evaluation. Words speak. Deeds speak. Were you just commenting on the summarry?

If there is an edit war raging in a scientific article what is the best way to stop it? With the authority that only clear prose and tight logic brings. That is quality. The pro hominiem arguement is just as false as the ad hominiem arguement. npov demands that both arguements are not to be given much weight. Logic demands it mav and I have had it out over another phd. In both cases mav was illogical and his violation of npov, by refusing to examine the facts, led a hubris filled physicist to his shame. BC looked to mav for authority. Wasn't he suprized when I showed him that his world view was logically inconsistant? Wasn't he suprized when I knew more than he did in his choosen discipline. It crushed him. And it was mav fault. I was the author of his crushing downfall. I was simply plying reason no malice. Just reason. The Phd cleared out the histories in order to protect his reputation, his internet business, and his status as physics teacher at a two year colledge in Orange County.

This did not have to happen. mav defers to phd. Phd gets out too far. mav doesn't refute logical arguements: this cause problems for everybody. And it doesn't even approach methodologies for npov. See the beautiful prose in Talk:EPR paradox There is power in quality. It stopped a hot edit war by showing them that their arguement was pointless given undiagnoisised problems with the article. Zoe it is a masterpiece. Then go see Talk:scientific method.

With all the phd working on the long term article, its a wonder that nobody saw it before. :-] Zoe the level of scientific articles can be quite high but any contovercial article becomes an edit war. They have not any understanding of the philosophy of science. The scientifc method is linked to 90 article an 30 other pages How many edit wars could be stopped if a single authoritative. It's a stable article; apparently everybody had their say. It sucked because it is not philosophically defensible. The long term article EPR Paradox shows the limitation of world view commonly held by scientists. If he could he could see the devaluation of the phd degree caused by the expansion of the university systems, mav would not be so impressed. It no longer confers anything except its qualification. How do phds settle their problems? Well that depends on merit doesn't it. JTD is going to meet the Wikipedian Ethos.

Take a look at my record I will put it against mav's npov. 216

Whatever - see my talk page. You are the trouble maker here, not me. --mav

Oh, God, now Two16 is babbling on my talk page. -- Zoe

Zoe you commented to me. Do you think that ridicule will help at this stage ? Eventually the truth will out. Take it over to my page if you like. Throw away comments don't impreess people with wit. User:Two16

1-Whatever language you're typing in is very hard to understand. 2-you don't need to write long diatrbies every time you write. 3-You are scaring me. -- Zoe

Does anyone have a clue what all this means? I'm too busy laughing to make head or tail of it! (You should see some of the other 'stuff' being placed around!!!) I know Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale. I get the impression that certain people inhaled some weird substance and forgot to exhale it again!!! I'd say the lunatics were trying to take over the asylum, except I don't think going by their typing they could even spell it. To think I wasted how many hours typing replies to you know who, thinking we had a 'serious' argument going!!! It like like trying to debate transcendental meditation with a Klingon! (And I thought this was a serious website! Obviously some corners are occupied by leftovers from 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'!) Take care. JTD 08:16 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Dear Zoe: Hi! Once again, thanks for reading my article, this time on boxer Kostya Tszyu. Airhead me of course, did not realize you had commented on it until today. As far as your comment, a question, I am almost sure it is KO Magazine. Cause the word Ko appears with two, big, large capital letters on the cover, and Ive read other magazines call it KO , although some others do write it Ko, but Im almost sure its written KO Magazine.

Once again, thanks and God bless you!!

Sincerely yours, AntonioMartin.

I haven't had any any dealings with Fwappler so I don't know. But I did begin to wonder about parallels with Sv. I noted a similar cadence sometimes in the way things were constructed, a moment of reasonableness followed by an earthquake of over the top ranting of a very personal manner. Both talked about seriously loopy poems and and being out to get people, etc etc etc. And each then quoted the other as 'evidence' that they were not alone in their views. And when paranoia hit, it seemed almost identical in structure. Both began making snide remarks about my having a PhD. It just seemed spookily strange, just too similar. Forget about great minds thinking alike. Either nutty minds do too, or they are in one and the same mind because they are . . . . Spooky! (To be safe, you'd better take this off your page when you get it, or I'll get an earful of oddball rants and tantrum throwing. Its been like dealing with Laurel and Hardy (or Laurel and Laurel?), except in a rather nasty 'we are right! f*** you, mav and everyone else. You are all a shower of revisionist pro-british Tory assholes' sort of way. Take care. Don't have nasty dreams about odd-ball unintelligable messages threatening doom on the world of Wiki. I'm sure someone out there has tablets that might cure it. If not, we'll get someone to tie them down and play tapes of the wit and wisdom of the George Bushes over and over and over again until their heads explode! JTD 09:31 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Zoe. :)

do you realize that the entire english speaking world understands my definition, and almost no one understands yours. Christmas card has a clear meaning! Why change it? I recogized your secondary meaning in my edit--saying that it was a rare use of the term. You merely deleted the universally understood meaning.

Why?

Arthur.

I didn't delete anything. I merely took the redirect out of "Christmas Card" and left "Christmas card" behind. -- Zoe

Hey Zoe.

Isn't this funny? I so feel like you and I should be friends, but somehow we've become estranged. Man, I hate that.

Nevertheless, read the current "Christmas card" (NOT A PROPER NAME AND THEREFOR NOT PROPERLY CAPITALIZED) to see that it no longer says what i said. I redirected properly (only proper names are to be capitalized) and i edited properly (the entire English speaking world agrees that this is not only the name of a "partridge family" album.

What's your problem? Why is this, again(!), only the name of some bubble-gum group's album?

Arthur?

p.s. Please! let's be friends!

A "Christmas card", with a lower case, is a generic item. "Christmas Card", upper case, is an album. They are different things. Please click here!!!!! -- Zoe

Zoe!

Hi, whoever you are!

I'm now happy! Thank you! We're friends. I have no more complaints!

Yours,

Arthur

Zoe,
I overzealously tried to edit War of the Austrian Succession without checking how long it was. I made the change I wanted (in the first sentence, regarding the HRE bit) but my browser cuts off the ends of really long articles. I'd be grateful if you could undo the damage for me :( -- even just to restore the old version -- I don't want to do more damage than I undo.
BTW, I was intrigued by the factoid that Patricia Cornwell was descended from Harriet Beecher Stowe. Unfortunately haven't been able to trace it exactly yet, but I'm looking. And finally <G>, I'll be ever so disappointed if no one reads and loves my Horace Greeley deathbed anecdote... -- Someone else 05:51 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Many thanks! Now I can rest easy<G> -- Someone else 06:04 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, I've made a suggestion for sorting out how we refer to royals who aren't monarchs. Basically you could call it the three generation rule. A monarch's siblings and children (First Generation) should be referred to by title of if they have none as Prince/ss of [name of country]. Grandchildren of a monarch (Second generation) should be referred to by title of they have one; if not by surname. 'Third Generation covers everyone else, and should involve use of surname only. (The more I think about it, the more I think instead of surname, we should go for 'Royal House' name; ie, not all UK minor royals are called Windsor, but as that is the Royal Family name, for convenience it should be used.) I've gone into it in a bit more detail on the 'talk:Anne Windsor' page. Let me know what you think. JTD 00:33 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe,

having had time to reflect on the Christmas Card page, and my response to it, you were absolutely right. I had no legitimate complaint against you. I was merely hasty and responded before i saw your appropriate modifications.

Arthur

Zoe, your mail is arriving on the mailing list, including your comment that you couldn't mail to the list. Have you perhaps turned off receiving mail, or maybe set something in your mail program that shunts aside mail you yourself have sent? Ortolan88

O, the mail that I sent to wikien-l was received, but the two I sent to wikipedia-l both bounced back saying there is no such address. -- Zoe

Dear ZOE: I'm sure your intentions, along with the others, was quite sincere in coming up with a formula for the opening line of an article on someone. However, it is a totally and completely lousy presentation that is hard on the eyes and far too much for researchers to be asked to absdorb. In plain words, it turns people off and therefore Wikipedia's credibity. Please get over the obsession with Google, the heading doesn't gain users, only QUALITY does. I am putting an enormous amount of work into hundreds of articles that, based on this hoffific heading presentation is rendering them useless. For people with or without a brain larger than a flea, this is what they need when using an Encyclopedia for a biography or other such items:

NAME: year dates, occupation.

John Smith (1920-1990), Medical Scientist

SPACE

Born John William George Peabody Smith on July 5, 1920, he was etc.

Make paragraphs short (See HarperCollins/Random House or amy other publisher about readability, interest span in the 21st Century etc.

LAST LINE (always): John Smith died on December 1, 1990 and was interred in ????.

If they were a great whatever, you might add one one to occupation. Then, in a new PARAGRAPH, the full date of birth. AND, I've never met anyone who said they were born in Tupelo, United States. So, do as I do and get the Province/Departement etc. for foreign countries. Too, nobody says they were born in Boston, New England, United States. So, a Region in France should be specified after the Departement or leave the region out. I don't want to see any more of my hard work changed. There is not one person on Wikipedia with any marketing expertise. Buy a few marketing books, use a little marketing common sense, and see how Wikipedia can succeed rather than articles on "getting new users." Build it right, accurate, and sufficiently detailed and interesting and they will come. ALSO, if idiots want to insert stubs or are too lazy to do research, LABEL the artice: Work in Progress". That way, a new user/viewer understands and doesn't click away thinking what a half-assed information site Wikipedia is. Because, when they do, they don'y come back (except to play and add the same useless bits of crap) and they don't tell others....DW

Sorry to butt in: are you sending to the list at nupedia.com or the one at wikipedia.org? the list was moved shortly before I unsubscribed. Best, Koyaanis Qatsi

KQ- to nupedia, I didn't know it was changed, nobody bothered to tell me. -- Zoe

Wow. well, I mean wikipedia-l is now at wikipedia.org; I don't remember where wikien-l is since I just "reply" when I need to. The change in wikipedia-l was announced about a week before I unsubscribed. Koyaanis Qatsi

DW, we've had this discussion before. If you insist on writing your own way instead of the way that consensus has developed here on the Wikipedia, your work will be changed. -- Zoe

Your so-called consensus has failed, utterly and miserably. Wake up and stop acting like a spoiled child who can't accept advice from someone who knows more, a whole lot more, than you. And, I will change each and every one of my articles back if you touch them and I will keep doing it. I'm tired of incompetence....DW

It seems that DW has share the views of 172 about colaborative work.

Ericd 02:47 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, I may have solved (and caused ;) your login problem. If that didn't do it, let me know and I'll dig deeper. --Brion 02:45 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Also, one more suggestion: stop labelling people as "French", "American" etc. Place of birth and article allows the reader to make a decision. Neither you, I nor anyone else has the right to appoint nationalities....DW (And yes, in the intellectual community, my view on this is now 100% accepted)

It must be nice to be perfect. -- Zoe

Generally one labels people by their citizenship. For example, Edmund Burke is an Irish-born British philosopher and statesman. An Wang was a Chinese-born American inventor. So stop with the political correctness. Chadloder 03:21 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Our parents shouldn't have the right to appoint nationalities either; I wish they'd all have children on the snow at Antarctica so we could pick citizenship for ourselves. Wistfully not Swiss, Koyaanis Qatsi

IMHO nationalities should be abolished they're a medieval survivance ;).

Ericd 03:28 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, Zoe is right in some contexts to label people. Most people I've ever come across in the 'intellectual community' as DW calls it, regularly do so. And find those sort of political correctness 'rules' that says you shouldn't absurd, self-righteous pompous nonsense! JTD 04:01 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Zoe, I'm undoubtedly an intellectual, so I can say without fear of contradiction that DW is 100% wrong in believing his views to be 100% accepted. Deb 17:58 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, I've just been chasing up some info on Google and noticed a lack of references to Wiki pages on it. I was checking up topics that I know are on Wiki; I of them I wrote myself and its still there. Is there some problem with Google linking up to Wiki pages? Just curious. JTD 22:39 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Been trying to Zoe, but unfortunately its page is too full for my browser. If I try to edit it to archive what is currently there, my goddamn browser will chop off and scrap the last quarter of the page. So I'm sorta stuck. (This browser is really causing problems for quite a few people! A lot of people have been sending 'help' messages around, complaining that they cannot access various pages. Mav's page, too, for example. is too full to be accessed!) JTD 22:59 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Google shows MFU's and because of the crap that MOST ARTICLES in Wikipedia are, it isn't drawing users. And, its because morons like a few of the above, haven't got a clue about anything, but come here to play. My 9-year-old niece logged on today for school research and the first thing she saw was Tokerboy calling himself a Bad-Ass. -- Smart, real smart. -- And you retards wonder why this is a failure. And yes, I back up my talk with QUALITY work that will attract users and help build a worthy reputation. ZOE: I will outline a marketing concept that even some of these idiots might understand. In the meantime, I'm fixing up the artist sights that I have put so much work into while idiots do ones like Georges Seurat that drives people away because it HAS NO VALUE.... DW

More: You say you are a movie nut. Well, now that we use Wikipedia to offend children and their parents and drive them away, the next thing is to get rid of those baby-boomers by adding to this PLACE OF LEARNING, articles like those on Cary Grant or Yul Brynner. Before you use your time "Wikipediainginginging" more of my hard work, why not use the time to properly fix sites like the aformentioned. Compare these sites with mine on Juliette Binoche or Irene Jacob or Audrey Hepburn, I even had to fix up Brigitte Bardot or Edith Piaf, or or or or or.... dozens of others I've done properly....DW

Prime examples of comments from idiots on this site who have no clue what they are talking about? JTD -- my dog has more intellect than Deb !

My sympathies on having to deal with such a prat as DW, Zoe. When you get self righteous egotists like that, the best thing is just to ignore them. But put his comments on the Wiki list so everyone knows what we are dealing with. It will give the people with 'real' intelligence on Wiki something to laugh about! I can't work out which description describes him best: Mr. Bean or Homer Simspon! JTD 00:47 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Zoe. 172 has discouraged be to begin another war with DW. But he as uploaded ton of photos that are IMHO probably copyrighted. He refuses to answer to my questions about images sources. Ericd 01:23 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Good luck, Zoe. Fight the good fight. I'll try to help if I can. Danny 01:26 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if you went back to Piaf et al and restored my hard work. Stop acting like a child because someone has better ideas than the "clique" you play with... Merci...DW Or would you prefer I leave to? Seems our phony friend, JTD would like that. So, why don't you vote me off too. Or, are you afraid if my work is compared to 99.999999 % of others, it is vastly superior. Read the publicity about Wikipedia. Not one word about "a quality site" and NO ONE has recommended it as an Encyclopedia....DW

1. I'm not part of Zoe's clique -- if such a groups exists. She has made changes on some of the articles I have written, some good, others bad.

2. However, seeing how she's been a contributor to Wiki for longer than I have, I feel it might win me a few points with both her -- & anyone who might follow our exchanges -- if I treat her with politeness & civility.

3. What are you talking about when you say "hard work"? I've looked at a couple of articles you "improved", & compared them to what Zoe did to them. The factual contents are almost identical, so it can't be that you contributed more research.

4.The only difference I see between your entries and Zoe's changes appears to be that you like to use a lot of sentence fragments -- which make sense if one is writing on paper & attempting to save printing costs -- but Wikipedia has no such constraints. According to the guy who owns the hardware Wiki is runnig on -- Jimbo -- there is no practical limit on the size of any article. And complete sentences are easier to read than sentence fragments.

Sheesh -- if the whole reason you are carrying on this battle with Zoe is over this trivial point of style, follow William Shatner's advice and get a life! Your changes do not make Wikipedia appear more professional or raise its credibility. There are thousands of entries that cry out for either more information or more modern information, & you whine on & on over her preference for complete sentences. -- llywrch 02:16 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

DW, I couldn't care less what kind of work you do, whether it's wonderful, adequate, or awful. I am not changing ANY of the CONTENT of what you write. The only thing I'm doing is making it match what Wikipedia AS A WHOLE has agreed to. If you don't care to play nicely, why don't you start your own site? After all, you're so much smarter than the rest of us. -- Zoe

Changing my work by YOU deciding on someones nationality is in fact a change of content....DW

Constant harping on this does no good. How nice to see you finally respdoning to a Talk page instead of just ranting on one. Why don't you go to the talk page for Irene Jacob and answer why it was YOU who created the article by claiming she was French? I won't be discussing this with you any more, but I will continue to make sure that your articles follow Wikipedia style. Expect a visit from Jimbo Wales (the owner of the site) in the near future. -- Zoe

Zoe, stop fighting with the KROQ guy. You're just filling up the database with revisions at this point.

Hi Zoe, you might want to explain your comment/question on Talk:The Tie That Binds ("a lot of information ..."). How well-known is, say, Zoltán Kodály? Do we really need such a lengthy entry on Enoch, Utah? And how familiar had you been with the name of Josip Plemelj before you edited his biography on 14 January 2003? Isn't it a tiny bit self-centred to assume that an article might be worthless/too long/whatever just because you don't know anything about it? Also, don't we want users to be able to get as much solid information from Wikipedia as we're able to give them? KF 09:10 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I never said the article was worthless, I just asked if we needed so much detail. -- Zoe

Let me rephrase my question: Why not? --KF

Why not just a brief sketch of the plot? -- Zoe

Because someone might want to know more about the book, and why not make the information available to them? Reading http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper gives me the impression that this is the idea behind Wikipedia. Of course someone else might say that students whose homework assignment is reading and writing about a particular novel could use what they find here, but I believe that if you want to cheat there are thousands of other places you can go to get what you want. KF 09:40 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)