User talk:Zoe/archive 4
|
|
Hi Zoe - the version of 2001 I put back didn't have Barbara Olson in it (it did have an extra full stop, though) - not to worry, just one of those things. Now, how about putting every album and film that was released in 1995 on that page ;) --Camembert
- Not a problem, it just seems that person has a serious thing about Barbara Olson. :-) -- Zoe
Zoe, I got your message. See my comments at BoM Talk. BTW, I love TMBG...their Flood release is great. Nice article. "Minimum waaaage. YAH!" BoNoMoJo
I wrote that you were getting "a bit trigger-happy" because you wrote "Since this movie was never made, I felt it really didn't need its own article...I vote Baby Boy be deleted."
The movie was in fact made. When one votes for something to be deleted on an incorrect assumption, I consider that a sign that person is erring on the side of deletion, rather than erring on the side of not deleting. I believe one should err on the side of not deleting. Similarly with The Further Adventures of Robinson Crusoe: you're assuming copyright infringement without evidence, and requesting that the page be deleted on that assumption. With respect to deletion, the burden of proof should be on the deleter, not the submitter. The archaic language used in the entry is mostly Defoe's, which is not copyrighted. --The Cunctator
Darling Zoe: Why did you reverse my setup for Saab automobile? I assume you want me to now go to every other site and amalgamate any person, place, or thing with the same name?....DW
Plus, I just noticed, you screwed up the Saab site, big time. Now, there is no automobile only something sold to General Motors.
Reply to DW: You'll note that I left Datasaab alone, because there was extensive information there that was worth preserving. There was nothing in Saab automobile that needed to be separated from Saab. I didn't "screw up" anything, I kept your wording in the Saab automobile article and incoporated it into Saab. -- Zoe
Dear Zoe: Hi! How are you? to answer your question, Liliquois Moon, or however it is you spell her first name, is the legal name that Lisa Bonet carries now. According to what I read, she changed it to that after retiring from acting.
My opinion, and of course I didnt write this on her page cause we are supposed to be neutral is, I mean, when I read her new name, I thought Ridiquois is what that name is! But I think that she is really tired of the good girl tag people put on her during the 80's, as her pattern of actions tells me she is. I mean, she posed on Rolling Stone those controversial poses and everything, then she started messing around with her second show, and I guess she thought Lisa Bonet sounded too goody goody, so she went and got herself a new age sounding name..
Thanks for reading my article again and God bless!!
Sincerely yours AntonioMartin
Here are some good external links for you that should help in your daily updates of the day pages:
- On-This-Day.com (http://www.on-this-day.com/)
- The History Channel: This Day in History (http://www.historychannel.com/today/)
- IMDb: This Day in Movie History (http://www.imdb.com/M/on-this-day)
--mav
Zoe, I've been called worse, if that's any consolation. Arno.
- I know the feeling, but I think I'll stick it out. I got my homies behind me. And I got your back, too. Want me to "lean on" Lyndonwong for ya? --Ed Poor
Thanks for your comment on my article on general paresis of the insane. I am new to wikipedia and unclear about the copyright rules. This paragraph comes from an article I have written and published in an academic journal. I thought that since I had written it, and I was quoting only a paragraph from the article that no one would would regard it as copyright infringement. The journal may well have the copyright on the article. Do you think that this violates any copyright rules. All the Best. Beans 11/22/02
Hi again, Zoe! I've only just read the above. I sincerely hope you won't leave. I sometimes get the feeling that there aren't many active women on 'pedia, and that we can't afford to lose a single one of them. I've also been "shot at" a few times, but I've developed a thicker skin now, and I stay because I enjoy working on the 'pedia and because I learn a lot about the things I write about. I also believe strongly in Internet content being free. Renata 01:42 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)
And just imagine newcomers like me, who might just like you very much, if you would leave you wouldnt meet THEM, or me, so dont say no to the unknown future. Dan
Zoe, my name is Andrew Szanton, I wrote the Humphrey Bogart article, and I didn't copy it from anywhere. I'm a big fan of his and I guess it shows, but I promise I did not plagiarize this. My e-mail is ASzanton@rcn.com I hope you will stick with Wikipedia.
Hi Zoe! I have been working on Wikipedia for a little over twelve months now. Well, that's a bit of a fib. I started working on Wikipedia a little over twelve months ago, but then my final year of High School called, and I have only picked up where I left off about a week ago. You come across your fair share of idiots on Wikipedia who refuse to let you fine tune an article, even if you are doing the right thing (like trying to get a NPOV in an article). My suggestion is, don't worry about them. Anyone who doesn't espect other users on Wikipedia will probably get bored with it and move on. If you stick with Wikipedia, you'll find it quite rewarding. - User:Mark Ryan
Take a look at the number of revisions(history) on New_Age, if you feel like passing the unappreciated baton =) BF 02:01 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)
I have given up trying to keep up with the new articles being created by the Battle Bot which calls itsle 80.9.133.152. If others want to take on the task, please go ahead. -- Zoe
No, Zoe, George I was King of Great Britain. It is confusing, but simply -
- Kingdoms of England & Scotland merged in 1707 to form 'Great Britain'
- Kingdoms of Great Britain & Ireland merged in 1801 to become 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'
- Irish Free State left the UK in 1922, leaving the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' (though the UK's title was not changed in this manner until 1927).
- So Anne was the first Queen of Great Britain (and Ireland separately as a kingdom)
- George IIII was the first King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
- George V was the first King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (with Ireland, or 26 counties of it, back as a separate kingdom).
I hope that clarifies it all. I've made all the changes to the individual pages and the list of monarchs. I've gone between them a few times and all seem to work. JTD 02:36 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)
Zoe:
Those discussions do not pertain to the article. They’d be relevant if they were, for example, disputing some of the figures in the article. But they’re not. These partisans (the apt term in the Wikipedia lexicon) are merely illustrating how much they dislike the Soviet Union. I don’t appreciate any of you people insinuating that I’m a Stalinist either. I'm not.
I defend my actions in Mintguy’s talk section. Go there.
I do not apologize for removing the irrelevant, ideological-charged commentary.
I will even do it again.
I quote:
“Treating Wikipedia as a chat forum. On talk pages, it is all too easy to get involved in emotional, partisan debates about various topics. Unless this results in an improved article, which it often doesn't, for drawn-out, emotional squabbles, please just sit on your hands. There are many other places online where you can engage in debate and to try to persuade other people of your views. That's really not appropriate on Wikipedia, because we're trying to focus on the task of creating an encyclopedia. Please see What Wikipedia is not. “
if this is not an emotional, partisan debate, then I don’t know what an emotional, partisan debate would entail:
“The American conservatives were most sternly anti-Soviet, and the magniude of the Soviet's crimes against humanity show that in this they were in the right; the leftist media might downplay these crimes to avoid admitting their political enemies were right all along. Surely the media wasn't leftist during the cold war, when the government ended up instituting legislation against it being so? Huh! You learn something each day...as a technical note, do the crimes of the USSR end up being counted as genocide per se? I was under the impression that genocide referred to the targeting of a particular ethnic group, whereas Stalin pretty much killed people randomly. I think it might be better to use most murderous or some other superlative like that.”
“Treating Wikipedia as a chat forum. On talk pages, it is all too easy to get involved in emotional, partisan debates about various topics. Unless this results in an improved article, which it often doesn't, for drawn-out, emotional squabbles, please just sit on your hands. There are many other places online where you can engage in debate and to try to persuade other people of your views. That's really not appropriate on Wikipedia, because we're trying to focus on the task of creating an encyclopedia. Please see What Wikipedia is not. “
Those discussions did not pertain to the article. They’d be relevant if they were, for example, disputing some of the figures in the article. But they’re not. These partisans (the apt term in the Wikipedia lexicon) are merely illustrating how much they dislike the Soviet Union.
THIS IRRELEVANT DEBATE IS HARMFUL TO THE FOCUS OF THE ARTICLE:
Rather than trying to cite the most sensational figures from black books and Robert Conquest, readers should focus on trying to improve this terribly weak article. The History of the People's Republic of China,for instance, is a far more informative and illuminating article. I take credit for most on the post-Mao era. This article tells you little if anything about the Soviet economy, Soviet society, the Cold War, the origns of the Cold War, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the casuses of the breakup, Perestroika, Glasnost, the Brezhnev Era, the Sino-Soviet Split, Communist ideology. In short, it’s not really going to help people understand why Soviet history unfolded as it did. I look forward to revamping it.
I am following the rules. What I have cited from the list of Wikipedia faux pas exonerates what I’m doing. What I’m doing is tantamount to removing vandalism, bias, or factual errors.