User talk:Zoe/archive 11

Hello Zoe, I've expanded my article on Vuk Karadzic, thought you'd want to have a look. Nikola

Active contributors greatly appreciated your through proofreading, edits, and dedication to creating articles that are scholarly, objective, and professional while readable, well-written, accessible to non-expert readers. Maybe a few vandals, Lir-types, or new users (like myself last December) might be thrown off by your emphasis on strict professionalism over contrived niceties, but this site is in a constant state of chaos where you have born the burden of keeping order. I myself failed to grasp what makes good, readable articles when I first found this site, but you have done more than anyone else to make me realize what does. I can understand your decision to focus on creating your own articles; that's what I do, and that's much more enjoyable and enriching (and less stressful). So I'm in really no position to request that you reconsider your "new policy", but I can attest to the fact that you have probably been the most valuable contributor on this site and that Wikipedia's going to go to hell without you. I can also attest to the fact that the vast majority of the active, valued contributors (the ones who matter) greatly appreciated your work despite disagreements from time to time. However, the best editor is not a specialist expert (though your expertise in many fields is impressive), but a professional editor who can easily spot mistakes and pick up subtle biases. 172

Zoe, your ruthless and constructive tidying will be missed. (OK, so there are times when you and I disagreed over some of it - viz the day before yesterday - but these are rare exceptions.) However, the way I see it, you have worked long and hard at a rather thankless task. If that's what you want to do - yes! Take a break and do whatever interests you the most. It's not as if you haven't earned it. Relax, find a topic you are interested in and enjoy. Tannin

Can I please echo that. In the time I have been here no one person has contributed more to giving wikipedia a proper stucture and cohesion than Zoe. We may disagree sometimes but wiki for all its faults is a success and a useful and regularly credible sourcebook, and much of that credit for achieving that belongs to a handful of people who in speciifc areas have brought 100% professionalism to what could be all to easily an amateur scribble box. People like Mav, Tannin, Deb, Michael Hardy, 172, John Owens and quite a few others have made crucial decisions and crucial interventions to keep this thing together. In my book, up at the top of the list is Zoe. So please do keep up with the editing, Zoe. WE NEED NOW and WIKIPEDIA NEEDS YOU. And do not ever underestimate the respect with which serious contributors view your activities and you personally. Take a break from editing by all means, but don't give it up. PleaseÉÍREman 23:58 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

To echo Tannin and Jtdirl|ÉÍREman and reecho myself, this site would go to hell without you. 172

Without Zoe, all the valued contributors will be scared away and this site will certainly degenerate, as Jtdirl aptly put it, into an armature scribble box. Within a month it will turn into the journal of Lir. 172

Ever since I came here, I've been amazed at your stamina. You seem to have an endless amount of patience with vandals and annoying users. As far as I can remember you've been doing this flat out since before I came. I'm hardly surprised you're tired. Have a rest. Have a permanent rest, if you want: I'd hardly be justified in manipulating your confessed Wikipediholic tendencies to the detriment of your mental health. But be assured that your contributions have been valuable, that the majority of Wikipedia users appreciate it, and that you've made Wikipedia a better place. -- Tim Starling 00:02 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Dear Zoe: Hi! Thanks for pointing out those mistakes at the Tommy Morrison page. That Kansas City born at thing was a big blooper! LOL I remembered always hearing he's from Jay as soon as you pointed it out.

10 points to you for your boxing knowledge!!!

Thanks fr reading the article and God bless you!!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Party at Santa Monica Blvd!!!! Martin

A vacation once in a while works wonders. I don't recall you ever taking one - no wonder you are worn out. I do hope you come back into the full swing of things soon - you and your edits are very much appreciated. --mav 08:27 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

I concur with Mav, based on your reaction to my observation on the Northrop Frye article. Honestly, Zoe, I was trying to make a neutral observation about your change there, & added a comment directed at whomever might need that excessive bibliographical material that you excised. My intent was not in the least hostile -- but your reaction to my comment truly gave me pause. -- llywrch 02:00 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Hi zoe, i don't know if there is a wikipedia protocol regarding image placement, but IMHO articles look more balanced if the eyes of the subject of the image are pointing toward the center of the page. I went ahead and left-justified two recent images you added. It won't bother me if you switch them back, but maybe you will see the difference. Maybe not :) Kingturtle 02:48 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Yes I agree - although I sometimes do the opposite for people I don't like (check out Adolf Hitler). --mav
Ha! good one. oops. sorry zoe. i've started a conversation on your talk page that isn't with you. so let me just add, thanks for all your hard work. Kingturtle 05:13 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Ha indeed! That's not very NPOV of you Mav. I shall have to revert it immediately. (Unless I see something shiny and get distracted first, of course.) And I too am trespassing on your good nature Zoe. I'll stop now. Tannin

You're like the cavalry. Kingturtle 03:18 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

I might be excessively conspiratorial, but I'm under the suspicion that Zog is Lir/Vera out for revenge. Is anyone else? 172

Absolutely. One of the pix Zog uploaded was called Adam.jpg. Koyaanis Qatsi

Well, yeah, but that could relate to the first man vs. the primate. -- Zoe

There's also the immediate "what did I do under this name?" comment, which indicates a familiarity with the site and the idea that good behavior under a new name can wipe a reputation clean. Koyaanis Qatsi

Brion confirmed Zog/BaboonMouth's IP, which traces back to usf.edu, which is in Tampa FL. So I think you're right that it's not the same person, unless he's on vacation. If you search for "name removed" then search for all the various emails you encounter, eventually you discover that name removed is attending Iowa State U. I retract my suspicion, not my exasperation. Koyaanis Qatsi 04:13 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)


Hi, Zoe -- Articles "need" full sentences? I just don't like starting an article with the title. If the title of the article is Ribot, starting the article "Ribot was...." seems redundant to me. And it doesn't seem to fill any need. But I'll see what I can do.Jfitzg

All sentences in both articles are now complete. I'll fix up Nearco tomorrow. Or maybe I'll do it now. As I said, I don't see the point, but it's not difficult to change it.

Hi again, Zoe. Thanks for the explanation -- I understand that people like uniform appearances, although I've never been able to figure out why. However, turning myself into a conformist to obsessive-compulsive rules will improve the C. H. B. Kitchin article, so thanks.Jfitzg

So how long will it take this time until someone says "Janet Dayton is (insert name)"? --KF 16:03 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
it is revealing when a username's first post is an emotional diatribe. Kingturtle 01:56 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
Please specify where the emotional diatribe can be found.

Zoe, I thought the United Empire Loyalists were just one group of loyalists that were the ones that settled in BNA (now Canada) and not everyone who had left the colonies and remained loyal to the Crown. Actually the UEL have special status as they received the right to that name from the British Monarch of the time. I've added a link to the UEM on that page, do you agree that we can mention that the UEL are just a subset of loyalists? I think that not all the loyalists were UELs Alex756

In the article Sundays in the Park with George, Sunday in the Park with George is what is written. I do not know anything about the subject to know if that is correct or not. If it is wrong, and you know, please fix it :) Kingturtle 05:18 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Re Talk:Orlando Bloom, "This isn't a chat room, Hannah. -- Zoe " is right, you are totally right, but from the thing the person wrote I thought, that it is probably new to Wikipedia. I just thought that we could "welcome" someone new in a little bit a different way, my comment on your comment was just supposed to invite her to work on the article, not to undermine you comment. (hope you understand, what I mean ;-) Fantasy

Just a message of support for your firm action on the Zog pages. Tannin

Same here. Thank you, Zoe. Hephaestos
I have to go to bed before the sun rises here, but I'll make one last cup of tea and do my bit for a while. Tannin

Zoe,
I would GLADLY assist with the chasing of the vandals, but I don't have sysop powers, so I'm not going to be of much use, I'm afraid! You'd think people would behave themselves, but .... studies show otherwise... -- Someone else 19:34 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

The /ban page should be kept, so that when, months from now, someone looks at the IP blocklist and wonders why "Zog" was banned, there's a page we can point them at. This makes our actions as sysops accountable and defensible. It also suppresses further discussion because we can just move it all to the /ban page as and when we feel like it.Martin

Oh, and could you list the pages you've protected on wikipedia:protected page? Thanks. Martin

No need - Buddha's already done this - but if you could do so next time, that'd be good :) Martin

Hi Zoe, just to let you know I've moved the 'Virgin Mary' discussion from User talk:65.94.51.84 to Talk:Virgin Mary. Regards, -- sannse 08:30 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Zoe, I'm glad to see you still around. We need people like you to keep wiki on the straight and narrow! I've already put a comment on the talk page. And yes, the Virgin Mary and the Blessed Virgin Mary are 2 different concepts. The former is a general christian concept that focuses on Mary's virginity, the latter is an exclusively Catholic (whether Roman or Anglo) concept of Mary as a living identity still intervening with her son on behalf of mankind akin to the role of Queen Mothers in France and the way they intervened with their son the King one behalf of people or groups. Much of the theology of the latter is unacceptable to people outside catholicism. However RCs and to a lesser extent ACs place major emphasis on the BVM. Actually I was thinking about this recently. I just got a new digital camera. I mentioned in the BVM article that many RC churches have side altars dedicated to the BVM. I went around Dublin photographing things for various wiki articles. I went into a number of churches to photograph marian altars so I must put one of the pictures on the BVM page. I hope that clears things up somewhat. Lol. ÉÍREman 21:42 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Homer Simpson etc. -- mib

Hi. Dunno if you spotted my comment on the image talk, so I'll repost it here. Your image at Image:ElectoralCollege1856.jpg calls the Whig the "American Know-Nothing Whig". This can't be, um, NPOV, surely? -- Evercat 01:08 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with California State University San Bernardino. DesertSteve 03:09 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I can't believe I've never heard of Guy Gavriel Kay before, only noticed the name when looking at Tolkien links. Based on your recommendation, I think I'm going to go check him out!

Oh, and just to echo what everybody else has said, I really appreciate your editing work on articles. Seems all too easy to get burned out on that sort of thing though; I find it recharges my enthusiasm to write a new article on an obscure subject, or to dig for missing facts that no one else has ever put into an organized article. Stan 05:15 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

To quote: "I spent several hours uploading and inserting photographs into many, many, many articles on Saturday evening and virtually every one of them got modified. I would appreciate some explanation as to why they were modified, instead of just being slapped across the face with the back of the hand. Why should I bother trying to contribute? I'm starting to feel that this is personal. -- Zoe"

Now, what are the implications of this message?

  1. You put a lot of effort into adding images to Wikipedia articles
  2. Nearly every one of the articles you thusly contributed to was subsequently modified by other contributors
  3. Modification of articles you have edited without first consulting you is a personal insult and nullifies your effort
  4. You demand an explanation from the dastardly editors as to why they would insult you and nullify your effort
  5. You threaten to stop contributing to Wikipedia if you don't get it

Now, maybe that's not what you intended to get across, but that's sure what I'm reading. If what you meant to say was "Hey Egil, it would have been nice if you'd dropped me a line and let me know that you think it would be better to put captions in just italics instead of small bold italics; we could both save some effort during subsequent uploads by using a format everyone agrees on," then you may want to consider lowering the energy level just a tad and saying just that, calmly and distinctly. --Brion 01:02 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Well, best of luck then, Zoe. --Brion 01:22 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Hey Zoe - You seem to be taking Wikipedia way too seriously lately. Whenever that happens to me I try to take a vacation - at least for a few days. It tends to recharge my batteries and gives me a fresh perspective. The last thing I want is to see you get completely sick of Wikipedia and never return. PS if you need to talk just email me. :-) --mav

Zoe, it is grossly unfair to send a message to JJ about the copyright of photographs at 4.50am (Irish time) and at remove them at 4.52am. At the start, through ignorance rather than malice he downloaded some copyright photos. When that was pointed out, he did it properly and chased up sources for images, including getting emails giving him permission to use them. Please show him some respect. He has been doing a good job and after all the trolls we have had lately, it is worth keeping people like JJ. At the very least give him the benefit of the doubt. With the work he has been doing he deserves it. Giving him two minutes to reply is rude and unfair. If someone is working away trying to get stuff for wiki don't treat them like that. You were justly annoyed when someone screwed up your images and captions. You (correctly) didn't like it. Don't treat relative newbie's like that. If he cannot clarify their source then act, but don't simply bulldoze over his hard work without even giving him a chance to reply. And BTW the page looked far better with his images than it did with the mediocre images previously on it. Wikilove. ÉÍREman 04:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I know. I have been on the relevant talk page. But I do think you were a bit hasty. I know if someone did that to something I had worked on I would hit the roof. I know I can be a bit bolshie sometimes, but sometimes it does help to send a msg to someone saying 'look. We may have a problem' and given them time to react, not two minutes. Or to leave a note on the SH talk page saying 'I think there are two many images. I propose to take them off later. What are other people's views?' But doing it the way you did at best annoyed a good user, at worst if there is a problem with copyright he is hardly going to be in a mood to talk to you so you won't know if he isn't talking to you because there is a copyright problem or because he is simply pissed off with you and has the attitude of 'fuck her. If that's the way she treats me, I simply won't reply.' And an article of that size in a mainstream encyclopædia would be more than happy to use his images if there are no problems with them. Wiki has far too few images on its pages. Given it nature, it can afford to have plenty. The article currently looks like a school essay. Proper images would help and make it a hell of a lot more user-friendly. If these images are OK they belong in the article. And if they are OK we should be saying to JJ 'well done for tracking down useful images', not leaving him pissed off, which if the images are OK is probably how you left him feeling. lol ÉÍREman 04:57 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the obvious confusion, but I wonder about the overlap. I just put a few facts on Constitutional Convention (United States) because if you go to the United States Constitution page it is very detailed there but it is definitely much broader than just the Federal Convention.Alex756

You have just edited the main page, so, I think you're sysop. I have a suggestion. When you upload a file that already exists, the web site doesn't warn you. I think this is pretty dangerous, as when you create a new page, you would use some basic title for image and create unsuspected conflicts. Thomas 21:15 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I just overwrote the file that you just deleted. Could you whack it again please? . I'll go back to alphabetizing. Contritely, Koyaanis Qatsi

Not a problem, KQ. -- Zoe

"Wabbit thethon!"
"Duck season!"
"Wabbit thethon!"
"Duck season!"
"Duck season!"
"Wabbit thethon!"
"KA-Blammmmm!" (<g>) -- Someone else 05:35 May 11, 2003 (UTC)~

Is there any reason for your repeated reversions of Zxcvb's changes to his own talk page? I can't see how it is helping anyone. Please enlighten me. -- Oliver P. 06:50 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, what you do to your own talk page is your concern, but can you please leave mine to me? Thanks. -- Oliver P. 07:02 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, I think on Canadian Order of Precedence that those are ambassadors to Canada, anyway shouldn't a list of Ambassadors from or to Canada be maintained on its own, this seems to defeat the purpose of the Order of Precedence list. 65.94.49.139 also removed a bibliographic reference to an autobiography by John Peters Humphrey, though whoever it is they have been making some reasonable minor copyedits. Alex756

Hi, Zoe. I admit I don't know exactly how Janet Suzman is Helen Suzman's niece, I've only heard that she is. Since Suzman is Helen's married name, I guess that Helen's husband and Janet's father must be brothers -- but I don't know for sure. Keep up the good work on the film/acting entries. Deb 11:53 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe,
I was inspired to write an article on hearing the news that Carol Channing, 82 years old by my calculation, was married yesterday to her high school sweetheart, but realized now that the article is a little anemic and could use a bit of help. Anything you can add to it? - hopefully, Someone else 03:48 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you Zoe. I realised after editting Bowling that my comment was a little churlish, but I do find it irritating the number of articles that don't make the country they refer to clear. jimfbleak 04:53 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Zoe,

We try to understand your commet on the Talk:Arnold Schwarzenegger, can you help us? Thanks, Fantasy 17:27 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

...ok, sorry for asking. Fantasy

Sorry for posting the message on your user page -- hadn't had enough caffeine yet. Anyway, if you could look at Reinforcement and advise me of any improvements I could make I'd appreciate it.Jfitzg

THanks for taking a look, Zoe. I was chiefly interested in suggestions for format. This following-the-rules idea is starting to appeal to me. Jfitzg

Hi Zoe, sorry for bothering you again about this, but it seems to me that you have quite clear Ideas about Wikipedia and I am just reading Copyright/Fair use/images/... for some days and I can't yet understand it right. Maybe you can help:

  • If I understood it right, you just scan the cover of a book, add the picture with reference to the book/author and that is ok in Wikipedia (Fair use). Right?
  • So, if I just scan the cover of a DVD-Box and ad the title + publisher of the film, is that also ok in Wikipedia?

Thanks for your help, Fantasy 16:29 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for answering so fast! I hope we can make this clearer in the future so that newcomers don´t have to be afraid when contributing new Images. Thanks, Fantasy

Just a heads-up: Jimbo started importing CIA World Factbook info into various country articles way back in the mists of UseModWiki; I took over the project from him, finished the countries, and started through adding info from the State Department. Both of those sources are in the public domain. If you find another suspected "violation" I'd check those two places first. Best, Koyaanis Qatsi

From Wikipedia:policy on permanent deletion of pages:

Pages to be deleted should be listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion before deletion takes place. The Cunctator
If the page contains no useful content (all gibberish for example) and no useful history, this step may be skipped. -- Zoe

My -- you do stay busy :) Thanks for the help today, and thanks for the welcome. BobCMU76 forgot to sig.

Hey Zoe, thanks for editing out my opinions from the Decline, I'm pretty new at this. I must admit that I'm sorry you took out my opinion that NOFX's instrumentals in this song are so complicated that it's almost like progressive rock, but I guess that many people would not agree. Of course, many people don't listen to both Dream Theater and NOFX, but that doesn't automatically make me right. Don't give up on educating noobs and the clueless! --Nelson

Zoe, sorry you had to do some unnecessary copy editing on Order of the Solar Temple I was in the middle of editing it and caboom! my computer crashed or the server stopped responding, or something, at least I got most of my work saved on Wikipedia, though I realize it is probably better to copy it to a clipboard before hitting save or preview as it may just disappear. I had just moved some stuff that I had found from a web site that I was going to pick for facts when something happened, it saved (I think I hit the enter key on my number pad but I couldn't get back online to keep editing. You guys are so diligent searching for copyright infringements that I couldn't get it past you for a minute! Great! Keep up the good work. As I hope you will see I've tried to get "the facts, just the facts" into the article and thus there is no infringement, not even fair use there. That reference to MacLeans was the name of a Canadian magazine that had an article about it and it was quoted in another article, that was why I was living it in. However, I've decided to remove anything that might just be hearsay as having read a lot about the Solar Temple a lot of it is just third hand rubbish. Thanks for your tireless contributions to my sometimes choppy work, I try to go over ever change I see you make, you are a very good editor. Alex756 14:26 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Zoe
If you get the chance I'd appreciate it if you took a look at Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. (and possibly Margaret, Duchess of Argyll) to see if you can think of anything to add. -- Someone else 00:32 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Many thanks, I always feel better about articles once you've had a look at them! -- Someone else 00:58 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Done.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

I'll take a look at the rest. I'm just downloading them, opening them in photoshop, changing the canvas units to "pixels," and increasing each dimension by two. Then I change to the pencil tool, make it draw one-pixel wide, and click in the bottom left corner of a pic, hold shift, click at the top left, etc. Holding shift makes it draw a line from the first point to the second. It sounds more complicated than it is. Koyaanis Qatsi

Hm, do you know if there's another way to put a border around it? It just occurred to me that people may save the image from our server and think that the flag has a border along the edges when it doesn't. Koyaanis Qatsi

Well I finally figured out how to do it, but at Netherlands their flag has the border on it, so mabye I should just go with that. Koyaanis Qatsi

What attack? --The Cunctator

User:Zoe I notice that you deleted the reference I had to Kraft in the Lenape article. Is that a wiki-style thing not to put citations in? ArloBee 13:22 20 May 2003 (UTC) (P.S. I'm new here, but also appreciate your help and hope you don't get driven off. I'm guessing that one has to just brush off rude behavior and keep doing what one loves. Peace!)

how about if it is in the reference or "Further reading" section below there? I had wanted to make mention because the Proto-Unami/Proto-Munsee definition might be a minority view (in linguistics there are a lot of those! :-) Perhaps "...two main dialects, identified by Herbert Kraft as..." rather than "...two main dialects, identified by Kraft (1986) as..." I will go read up on how to attribute specific theories in the text of an article. ArloBee 06:14 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Dear Zoe, i just saw what No-Fx/Michael did the last days. I just want to say that i am not Michael, although i might have worked on one of his pages (Operation Ivy) and tried to make it a little better... it was hard for me, just browsing VfD, and seeing me suspect of being a vandal. But after looking at the story behind i can understand your anger. --Diftong 10:55 24 May 2003 (UTC)

FYI, I've removed this from Votes for deletion. --Eloquence 06:10 25 May 2003 (UTC)

  • Operation Ivy - badly-written article by presumably the banned user Michael. -- Zoe
    • Who cares who wrote it? It seems to be pretty much accurate. If you have a problem with the way it is written then re-write it, why don't you? GrahamN 06:10 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Because policy is to revert and delete all entries made by banned users under other names. -- Zoe
    • There's no evidence to show that 198.81.26.241 (5 edits) or User:Diftong (7 edits) are in fact Michael, witch hunts not withstanding. Further, there's no generally agreed policy on what to do with articles created by banned users. You are cordially invited to help edit meta:bans and blocks if you wish to create such a policy. Martin 20:59 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Have you ever met a vandal that you didn't want to keep around? -- Zoe 01:40 21 May 2003 (UTC)
        • Have you any evidence to suggest that this user is a vandal? Martin 09:16 21 May 2003 (UTC)
        • Update: user:Diftong appears to be from the german wikipedia, and continues to resemble neither a banned user, nor a vandal. Please keep this article Martin 14:29 23 May 2003 (UTC)
          • Thank you for the support. I am NOT Michael. I try to write good articles, but with a limited english. I say thank you to everybody who corrects my articles (even if they put the contents of 1 hour work (10 sentences) of mine into 1 sentence (see Swiss German ;-)). Please email me if you think people with a bad english are an annoyance to en.wikipedia (diftong at gmx dot net), or even better, write comments like the above on my usersite.


I lament this decision of yours. -Reboot

As do I (something of a rookie, but I'm already convinced you're irreplaceable). -Elzamam

Me too. The nature of this place is such to drive everyone crazy, at some point. But you have played so valuable a role in the community... Slrubenstein