User talk:Zoe/archive 10

POLICY:[edit]

If you don't leave a name, don't expect me to respond.

Hi, my first time using talk... sorry if this is not what I'm supposed to do. Just registed for a login too. I was the user who did the edit (adding the The Number 420 link) just before you on April 20. I usually want to double check before deleting something that someone else posted. After deciding that it's ok to delete the police code reference, I was surprised that someone had just did it. Anyways, it's my birthday on 420! -- glueball

Hiya. Take a look at my latest contribution on the Olga page. I think you might get the joke! ÉÍREman

Was it you who posted the Current Event about the missing viruses? I have searched to find such a news story about it, but I can't find out. Can you point me in the right direction? Kingturtle 02:42 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Nick Rhodes discussion deleted -- thanks again. Catherine

ZOE!!!!! I'm shocked. You of all people! :-) Heir Apparent and Heir Presumptive as formal constitutional terms that are generally treated as proper nouns, hence the capitalisation. And you are normally so right on most things! I am in shock. (Good job Lir/ . . . . Fiber isn't here for she'd be crowing as jtd/zoe disagreeing on something. :-) ÉÍREman 23:49 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Why thank you, my dear. Another year older *groan*. BTW I have included that naming convention I proposed on names of cardinals in the relevant naming convention page. No-one has disagreed. Only Deb had some queries. I think on balance it is the best and most workable solution. I have come across a few older cardinals from centuries ago where I can find out practically what they had for breakfast on the 13th of August. Except their friggin' first name, which seems to have become lost in the mists of time. Using the format we were discussing [[name Cardinal surname]] does allow me to put them on. I can create a page on [[Cardinal Telford]] even if I can't get the first name. Without the word Cardinal I'd be able to put on [[Telford]] which ain't workable, even though I could fill a wiki article with such juicy delights as what he had for breakfast, how often he cut his nails and what his view about the reformation was. ÉÍREman 04:47 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Back in 1991 there was a dispute in the Irish media about whether to call the tyrant Saddam or Hussein. I was one of those involved who was asked to check the information. Linguistic experts, experts in local languages, etc were checked with. Other major news organisations like the BBC, ITN etc also checked. The response was 100% clear. Hussein is, in the words of one, "illiterate rubbish". Hussein is his father's name, attached to his own". His name however is Saddam, and that is the effective equivalent to what we would regard as a surname. The news agencies were told to NEVER EVER use Hussein as a surname, and ALWAYS use Saddam.

If EB says differently, then it is 100% wrong. Yes, I'm serious, 100% wrong. Believe it or not, the major encyclopædias are littered with errors. (The World Book Online plays the wrong Irish national anthem. Or rather the wrong part of it. The anthem is the chorus. They play the verse, as did the US during the Los Angeles Olympics - God the Irish were pissed off with that! ) Every encyclopædia has a checking mechanism whereby facts are checked, rechecked, re-rechecked. (I am part of one encyclopædia's checking group!). But mistakes regularly slip through. The World Book in the 1960s wrote every decade as the '1950's', '1960's' etc., to the fury of english teachers who would be greeted with kids saying 'but that's how the World Book does it!' (I was one of those kids!) But mistakes regularly do get through, particularly on the Online versions, where for some reason less checking goes on. I know one encyclopædia describes itself as 92.7% accurate. In their next rewrite, they are aiming for 95%! This is one case where the EB, normally a great sourcebook, has got it wrong. It looks like someone wrote a draft and it either never got checked or the error never got spotted.

BTW the US media were appalling during the war on things like this. BBC, ITN, even our own RTÉ strove to get such details right. Then you'd tune into NBC Nightly News, CBS or ABC (we get to see them here. Though usually they are so bad we avoid them like the plague). But for the war many of us watched them, and cringed at names wrong, locations wrong, details wrong. They could not even get the names of some of the regiments in the British Army right! British and Irish newspapers wrote articles about the lazy journalism and failure to check things. One big issue was Saddam's name. It was as if it had now been deemed that Hussein was to be Saddam Hussein's surname in american-english (or incorrectly spelt english, as some Brits call it!). But it is simply incorrect. Saddam is used as the surname. Hussein was simply his father's name that was attached for paternity reasons, not as a surname, to the effective surname, which is Saddam. ÉÍREman 01:17 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Current BBC headline US arrests sixth Saddam aide. ÉÍREman 01:20 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

On this note, see m:Making fun of Britannica. I keep finding little errors in the EB's music articles (keep forgetting to add them to that page tho) --Camembert

Reversion alert! Koyaanis Qatsi

Um, nobody yet, I guess. There has been discussion at I think user talk:TUF-KAT about Michael, though, suggesting his contributions should all be thoroughly fact-checked & verified. He's on again, under an IP, that's all. Koyaanis Qatsi

No Zoe, but non-Americans do get increasingly frustrated when so much of wiki is focused on America. An article on republicanism focuses on the American republican party until the rest of us rewrote it. The article on First Lady was exclusively the US first lady until I renamed it to make that clear. The article on 'president' was exclusively on the US president. Lists of what were the 'hit' TV programmes of each year focus totally on the US but aren't called US lists and when I suggested they should be there was uproar. Non-Americans spend much of their time on wiki de-americanising articles. It doesn't take much effort for American contributors if they are writing on an American topic to calling it so in the name. But instead it seems that America is the template and everything else should be added in. This article is a classic example. The world says Saddam. America says Hussein. So this article says Hussein. That isn't to say every American contributor and every article started is americocentric. But so much is. (The abortion article shunts off other countries' experiences on the issue to linked article. But central to the article is Roe vs Wade and American experiences and American perspectives. Why isn't Roe vs Wade shunted off to a link article? Why do worldwide readers have to read though an article that focuses so much on the US experience? ÉÍREman 02:43 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Of course there was uproar. The uproar was not that you shouldn't change it to include other "hits", it was because you and other non-Americans decided to make it an anti-American thing. If you want to add non-American items to lists that are not specifically American, then do it, but don't keep complaining that it's America-centrism. When you first came on here you started writing a lot of new articles about Irish history and Irish politics. Nobody complained that what you were doing was Ireland-centric, it was what you are familiar with and what interests you. But heaven help us if we Americans write about things that we are familiar with and interest us, then we're somehow wrong. We should only write about non-American subjects, I guess. -- Zoe

That is unfair, Zoe. I wrote history articles about Ireland that were clearly about Ireland and left no-one in any doubt about that. But that is a millon miles away from what so often happens on wiki, where American contributors write an article that is exclusively about America but don't state that fact in the title; instead they name it as though it is the definitive list, the definitive source on something, that sorta . . . well leaves out 200 other countries and only focus on America. So a list of television in 1960 tells us what topped the ratings in America, what was watched by America, what mattered to America. But instead of being called US television, it is presumptively called just television. As far as I am concerned, all lists that are totally focused on America should be renamed to state that. I have no problem whatsoever with lists of things that are important to America. I just wish creators of such lists would remember that there is a world outside America; the entire world wasn't watching I Love Lucy, listening to Elvis or fixated on James Dean. And being told what film had the biggest box office draw in 1974 is wrong when it means the biggest box office draw in 1974 in America. America isn't the only country with TV, the only one to watch films, the only one with its own popular music, the only one with a president, the only one with a First Lady. It isn't the only country with a constitution, the only country with a presidential system, the only country that is a democracy. But all too many articles are written about America that purport to be international. (I just left one earlier than went on and on about the Fifth Amendment. Which fifth amendment? There are 700+ constitutions, current and past out there. Americans know what Fifth Amendment it is referring to. I did (because I am an American political junkie; I've just finished rewatching an old episode of the West Wing, my favourite show). But why couldn't writer out there say "of the US constitution"? I'd say it if it was about the Irish constitution. Everyone else would say it if it was about their constitution. Why don't Americans? Why did the writer presume there is only one fifth amendment and the entire world will know that of course it is the one in the US constitution?

BTW please don't take my sarcasm as being Anti-American. We Irish can be bitterly ironic (eg, what I wrote about Americans and guns) but we still do love Americans. Ok, we may be a bit freaked out by the sort of American tourists we get (green trousered, large backsided sixty-somethings with their 'Kiss Me I'm Irish' green hats, plastic leprechauns, their pints of guinness and their vision of Ireland that comes from Disney's stage-Oirish 1960s Darby O'Gill and the Little People) but we still have quite a soft spot for the good ol' US of A. We were the only country in the world to declare a national day of mourning for the victims of 9/11. I still have a poster on the wall from a function Bill Clinton attended as president here some years ago, where I got the pleasure of meeting him. (VERY impressive guy, but Jeez, but Hillary has a 'cold' handshake though!) Deep down, many of us do love America; we just wish Americans (on wiki and elsewhere) would stop presuming that America is the world. I suppose that is a phenomenon that affects different wikis, with a degree of native-centism. But on this wiki, the degree of americocentrism is striking, as the Rachel Corrie page embodies. American wiki contributors need to remember that if they are writing exclusively about something to do with America, say it; don't presume the entire world watched I Love Lucy, the entire world listened to Elvis, the entire world knows or cares who Rachel Corrie was, that Roe vs Wade is a worldwide concern. For millions out there, those things, and much else of the americocentrism on here is irrelevant, annoying and in some cases enough to discourage non-Americans from staying on here. ÉÍREman 00:10 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Zoe. Let me remind you that the two of us had exactly the same discussion on 02/23/03, only ÉÍREman/Jtdirl has explained the situation in greater detail here giving more relevant examples. Let me also add that I don't see anyone attacking Americans as a nation let alone you as an individual for Wikipedia articles which leave out the fact that things also exist outside the US. Why do you always react to that as if someone had insulted you or the Americans?

An example from a different field might help: When I saw in "Recent Changes" yesterday that someone had created a new article entitled Fallen Angels I immediately wanted to read it. What I was expecting was a text on Noël Coward's play. When I realized that it was about some movie I'd never heard of I added a line about Coward's play. I think that's what most people want on Wikipedia: articles which reflect more than just one segment of the truth. --KF 09:26 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

You know Zoe, I apologize if I sound agressive myself quite often. I don't want to be anti-american, in truth I don't. I fight that feeling. But, I find my nose being pushed in it quite often around here. Believe me, I found quite my share of anti-french myself in all the articles, and all the talk page. Some of it coming from yourself, while nobody had provoked you (memories of some talk page). It is a bit disturbing to fall on articles with content such as this without feeling very unwelcome, and wondering if the goal of some here is not only to humiliate other countries.

I am quite certain the americano-centrism mentionned above by others is made in a totally unvoluntary way most of the time. In the crop rotation article, I found several months ago, crop rotation was pioneered by an american, Carver. While in truth it was first mentionned in roman litterature, and practiced at high scale in my country during middle ages. It might sound very very minor, but that is an easy example of what give me the feeling revisionism could be under way in Wikipedia. I have no doubt the author who mentionned this point learned it in school, but writing it here with no further check from him...and hop, centuries of european practices are forgotten. Quick and easy. And reading this, which I can correct, I wonder how many quick and easy assumptions are made all along wikipedia. Hiding the truth, or transforming the truth, or just (most of time) forgetting or not knowing the truth. Or just realising the truth might not be the same for everyone.

And please do not answer we can modify the articles and correct them. Of course it is true we can. But how many americans are here for how many french who can give their own vision of the truth ? Certainly not enough to correct things. While there are certainly enough americans here to correct my wrong asumptions. That is where it is hurting. This is not anti-americanism; please do not confuse this with that nasty feeling. This is just a feeling of powerlessness over the reliability of content of an encyclopedia which could one day become a reference. We non-american are struggling to compensate all the time. User:anthere

Anti-americanism is the following: "Americans are stupid and fat and uncouth," etc., etc., ad nauseam. Anti-americanism is not, "There is a world outside of the United States, some of us even speak English, and an encyclopedia that is worldwide in scope would do well to remember that fact." I do spend a lot of time correcting articles that are written as if the United States is the only country that exists, or as if the United States and Britain are the only English-speaking countries that exist, and it is getting very tiresome. - Montréalais

in short, that's the difference between anti-americanism and americano-centrism. We may not like americano-centrism, without being anti-american. Notice that the english wikipedia is not the only place suffering from nation-centrism. Similarly, the french wikipedia is suffering from France-centrism, which is just as wrong toward canadians in particular. Ant

You may wanna check out the wholly offensive comments by Michael I removed from your userpage... I'm hoping that the plans introduced on the mailing list go through, since I don't Michael would have the foggiest idea how to undo that banning (I don't want to mention the specific plan here, since he'll probably read it). Anyway, thanks for your help on dealing with him. Tuf-Kat

The Ten (album) list is in the order it came up on a search on allmusic.com. I dunno how they do it, so feel free to reorder it in whatever manner floats your boat. The more complete list of search results (I didn't put bands I never heard of on our list) seems to be pseudo-alphabetical order -- begins with A's, then moves to P, S, W, T, Y, but there's no real order to it. Tuf-Kat

Regarding Fast Forward: you should have checked the edit history. That page dates back to pre-Phase III. Someone vandalised it about 2 days ago, by changing "Fast Forward" to "Comedy Co.". -- Tim Starling 02:34 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Why is that anti-Americanism is all the fault of the Americans, but anti-French sentiment in the United States is also the fault of the Americans?

This was brilliant. I had to use it in my talk page. -º¡º

Do you know if there are, from a technical viewpoint, any special consequences to an IP having been blocked twice? I'd blocked 147.31.4.3 a couple of hours before you did it again; would we, eventually, unblock it once or twice? -- John Owens 20:33 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for fixing samw into a user.

Zoe, slight concern about your editing of Fujishima Kosuke. The original page text had Fujishima Kosuke (1964-), and while I'm happy about your edit into what you've called "Wikipedia Format", I'm concerned that the previous information that he is still alive is now gone. Any thoughts? -- mib, Fri Apr 25 03:17:32 GMT 2003.

Zoe, can you provide links to Wikipedia standards for biographical and titular information, such as the "anticipatory hyphen of death". Feel free to get anal on Fruits Basket too, since you don't like name capitalisation. -- mib, Fri Apr 25 03:24:53 GMT 2003.

In that case, can you recommend a "template" entry (perhaps one you have done) for biographies? -- mib.

I didnot create that plural page. I don"t want that plural page. It should be deleted. Which I asked several times. So, please, *do* delete that plural page and I will be perfectly content. ant

We may disagree on the nuances sometimes, Zoe, but you and I agree on the big picture of what wiki should be and that it should embody the highest standards. So we are on the same side really. We may just disagree on how to get there. *wikilove* ÉÍREman 23:39 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I think you forgot to re-enable your sense of humor this morning. Ah well, apologies if you've been offended. Don't take life so seriously, you'll live longer and more enjoyably. Best wishes. -- mib

HELP! User:Fred Bauder keeps adding in POV additions to the page on Communist state. The page is not about communism. It is simply about the political science definition of the term communist state. But Bauder insists on adding in all sorts of references to concentration camps and liquidations of anti-communists. Whatever justification there may be for discussing such matters on a page on communism, it has no relevance whatsoever to a page about a political science term used to describe a particular system of government. It is as irrelevant as discussing Prince Charles' sex life in a page on the political science definition of constitutional monarchy or discussing Bush's tax plans on a page on the political science term federal republic. But no amount of explanations by me seem to be able to get it into his thick skull that this is NOT a page on communism. I've lost count of the number of reverts I have had to do, and the odds are when I finish this and go back, I will find he will have reinstated his stuff again. I have put a note about this on the annoying users page and the vandalism page but I really could use someone of your professionalism here. ÉÍREman 02:20 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

HELP! User:Jtdirl is deleting my wonderful additions to the article communist state. Anyway, regardless of the difficulties involved I think a description of the general characteristics of a Marxist-Leninist state are appropriate in that article. Fred Bauder 11:30 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Hey Zoe - What's up? I just want to say that you and your edits are very much appreciated around here - especially by me. :-) --mav

Hey -- Exactly what is your agenda, I wonder? Is it scaring people away by use of bullying tactics, so that your precious Wikipedia for yourself? Well, I think that is very easily done, so such achivements don't impress me very much. I've spent much time on Wikipedia, seeing it, among other things, as a lab of human behaviour. It has been a very interesting study, that's for sure. Since I always put my name to stuff I write, please don't answer me, even if you threaten to do so under your NEW POLICY. -- Egil 10:11 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

On Egil's user page I explained that he's way off and likely coming to the same mistake that I had in the beginning. 172

Dear Zoe.

I apologised; there's nothing else I can do if you still feel slighted. I really was sorry, though apparently failed at coming across as sincere. I hope I don't have to stoop to an emoticon!

I do think you're taking things too seriously, which is not to say that the efforts you put in here aren't serious or worthwhile, just that it's not useful to get upset about the little stuff. Why would you, or anyone else here, care what I think or write? I've been here three days! Even if I had been up to no good, can you really say it was worth the effort of having an argument?

Anyway, I do wish you the best, and I was grateful for your help.

- mib

Hey, revert me all you want. At this point, I really don't give a damn. -- Zoe

I don't understand, was this about Dixie Chicks? -º¡º

Zoe, could you please protect Communist state if you have the power? It is a page purely concerned with a political science definition of the term. It is not about communism in general. A range of contributors, from Sirub, 172, Danny, myself and even Shino Baku have worked on it and produced a page all are happy with. However one user, Fred Bauder, has spent two days reverting to a version that has additional paragraphs by him that are seen as highly POV. His additions are all about communism which should be debated there. This page is about concepts of the state and the relationship between state and party in what political scientists call a communist state. The stuff he is adding in, apaart from blatently POV is utterly irrelevant to the page. Issues like concentration camps in the Soviet Union belong in a history article on the USSR, or elsewhere (if suitably NPOVed) but not in a page on systems of government. There is one version accepted by everyone. Then there is Bauder's version which he continuously reverted to even though he has been told his information is POV and irrelevant on this page. I am fed up having to clean up his mess, only to find he reverts to it again almost immediately. It is wrong that one user can continually mess around good work by a lot of people so that he can insert irrelevant POV opinions. I'd much rather be working on other articles than standing guard over this page. And I'm sure 172 and others would to when they sign on. ÉÍREman 22:31 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC) PS: I have reported his behaviour on the Annoying Users and the Edit Wars page but so far no-one has come to the rescue of the page.

Sorry to hear about that. You of all people do not deserve that treatment. Re the Communist state: don't worry about being seen to intervene in a war. It is a one-sided war. Everyone is happy with one version. One person isn't and is vandalising the article. Protecting the page would allow everyone else to agree about what to do. Nobody else is around right now and I am going to have to leave soon. (I planned to go an hour ago but got stuck here again cleaning up Bauder's vandalism. It would just cool off the situation and stop Fred, who has tried this elsewhere, from screwing up this page here with his highly political POV that is completely irrelevant on that page. ÉÍREman 22:50 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe you should just walk away for a little while until he's gone, then revert? -- Zoe

So far he has left my last reversion alone. The article was specifically created by me to avoid the problems he is creating on this page, by creating a link to define what the term Communist state, which he refused to accept in China. Having been attacked for his POV attempts there and had his attempts to remove the link blocked by others there, he came to here in an attempt to get his views into the debate through the back door, so to speak. I get the impression that no matter what neutral links were created from China simply to define in narrow terms a particular term, he would raid the article and adapt it to put in his opinions, which as you can expect, he thinks are NPOV, something no-one accepts. And even they were NPOV, they are still being put on the wrong page (largely because they were deemed to full of a political agenda and POV for the right page. I'm going out in a while and I expect when I get back, he'll have re-installed his POV there again. Maybe by then someone else will have come on and can do the reversions! ÉÍREman 23:00 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Do you want to revert all the LibertyForums links or should I? If we both are doing it at the same time then we are going to revert each others reverts resulting in the links being resurrected. --mav

Hi Zoe. Every so often, I get a message that I am blocked by you, along with the "Get a life, Michael" message (I don't remember the exact words.) I just want to clarify that I am not Michael. I guess it is a glitch because he is/was using the same service provider as me. Danny

I think that there is a basic problem with me being blocked just because I am using the same server as Michael. I also do not understand why I am blocked on certain articles but not others. Danny

Strange, isn't it. I think it must just be some glitch. I posted a query to the mailing list. I hope you don't think that I am bashing you. In fact, this has happened to me a couple of times before, including with Isis. Danny

Regarding your comment on User talk:Tim Starling: if I've been following you around, it certainly hasn't been deliberately. I've been taking an interest in VFD recently and our paths have crossed a couple of times. I've tried at all times to keep my interactions with you, and my comments about you, civil and courteous. I apologize for any offense I've caused, and in the future I will be more careful.

Regarding the most recent event, my comment on VFD about Iraq's "Dirty Dozen": I didn't know the articles originally had no text, and were just pictures alone. Given this fact, I consider your listings justified. I apologise that I didn't look into the history, and that I didn't issue a retraction of some kind when I found out.

Our views on what should and shouldn't be in Wikipedia differ somewhat: in fact I consider myself to be somewhere near the opposite end of the spectrum. In a few debates I've argued in favour of inclusion, and you've sometimes listed, deleted or argued against things that I think should be included. I value and respect your views on policy, and I think you, and others like you, are essential to finding a median policy acceptable to everyone.

Finally, I consider your contributions extremely valuable, especially your aggressive weeding. This is why I said on Village Pump on April 24 (after expressing disagreement over Dennis O'Keefe) "Of course, I hasten to add, Wikipedia would fall apart without her". That's one statement I don't intend to retract.

-- Tim Starling 05:41 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)