User talk:Zoe/archive 5
One of your most admirable qualities is your dedication to detail! I've noticed a few times when I've intentionally not "wikified" certain dates because it seemed that no one would ever want to cross-reference to them (as an example, I didn't wikify the dates of the four marriages I just added to the Aga Khan III because I didn't think that anyone would ever want to put them on a year page) that you've followed thru and wikified. I don't want to create work for you and if you think it best, I'd be happy to wikify all dates from the start -- if you think it prudent! --- Someone else 23:15 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)
I find it very rude that you changed Knuckles the Echidna in Sonic the Hedgehog 2 to redirect to Knuckles the Echidna, as the articles should and will be totally different topics. Please refrain from doing anything like this, I don't need any trouble. - The T
- I find it very stupid and insane to have separate articles on the same character. Simply explain in one article how this character is depicted in each game. Compare and contrast the differences. --mav
I find it very rude that you feel that anyone cares about this nonsense that it needs its own article. -- Zoe
- Is there an archive of deleted articles? I notice tons of deletes lately. BF 22:53 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)
Great to see the county seats showing up. What a lot of work. I've been ragging Ram-Man about it since the beginning, so I really appreciate your effort. Ortolan88
Go to my page, 172 and look at my extensive contributions in such a brief period of time. Then, you'd understand why I don't what to be misrepresented on that page.
I am not a Communist either. I was just shocked from day one how biased some articles in Wikipedia were.
That must've given people the impression that I'm a Communist. That misunderstanding would explain the animosity directed toward me. Now that you know otherwise, can you and others be less hostile? --172
- Try being less hostile and more cooperative to us first and we'll take that under advisement. Yes, the articles did have a real anti-pinko feel to them before but some of your first edits went in completely the other direction. So replacing one POV with the opposite POV isn't an improvement. Your current edits still seem overly sympathetic to communists but I have to admit that they have greatly improved NPOV-wise. --mav
I did not add bias to any articles. I have listed contributions on my page, User:172.
Go through the articles.
I have improved every article boundlessly. In fact, I think that's the real source of the resentment. --172
- Perhaps it also has something to do with your overblown opinion of yourself too. --mav
- Indeed! I notice that this remark is cut-and-pasted verbatim into my talk page, too. There's something impressively narcissistic about handing out ditto-edits to everyone. Like pasting propaganda to every available wall. ;-) --Len
Blanking a page that was created by a vandal or via a newbie experiment that has obviously crap for content is just as good as placing it on the votes for deletion page. A few of us sysops periodically check the short article special page and delete these en masse. The votes for deletion page is for stuff that isn't as obvious (such as very short stubs, copyright violations, articles on idiosyncratic terms or non-famous people, propaganda etc.) Cheers! --mav
- In case on blank pages, I'm sure it's not a fully mechanical deletion, or an eventual vandal-bot (or even a "manual" vandal) would encounter the sysops' unintentional help ;-) --G
- Yes - we always check the history first before deleting. --mav
- Just studying some organisation, while preparing some service pages fo the it.wiki - never doubted :-)) --G
- Yes - we always check the history first before deleting. --mav
Hi, Zoe, I was wondering about the date of January 1 for Queen Victoria assuming the title Empress of India. My impression was that Parliament passed the Royal Titles Act in 1876 permitting the change in her title, and that the change was made by Royal Proclamation on April 28, 1876. -- Someone else 05:48 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
- Answering myself, here. January 1, 1877 was the date of the Imperial Assemblage in Delhi where Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India. It's at least arguable that this was an announcement rather than the date on which she became Empress of India, so I'll change "became" to "was proclaimed" on the pertinent pages and we won't have said anything that isn't perfectly correct! -- Someone else 06:34 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
- That works for me. I wasn't aware of the difference. -- Zoe
Dear Zoe: Hi! I just wanted to ask you not to place the Ashley Brillault page on the deletion log. I recognize that the first article written shouldve been deleted, but in a coincidence I was watching Lizzie McGuire today and decided to make her a page so I found that page. I put together as best as I could some info from what I found online, so hopefully, that will save the page.
As always, thanks and God bless!!
Sincerely yours AntonioMartin
Antonio, I got word from mav that he and the other sysops go through the empty stubs to see if they should be deleted, so I don't need to put empty articles in the to be deleted list, so if you've added something to the article, it won't show up on the list, so you're okay. -- Zoe
Zoe, apparently you don’t know much about “European imperialism in the nineteenth century”. Read the first paragraph of the article you want to rename:
"In a scramble for overseas markets between the Franco-Prussian War and World War, Europe added almost 9 million square miles—one-fifth of the land area of the globe—to its overseas colonial possessions. Ushering out the cavalier colonialism of the mid-Victorian era, the age of Pax Britannica, the late nineteenth century Romantic Age was an era of "empire for empire's sake". But scholars debate the causes and ramifications of this period of colonialism, dubbed “The New Imperialism” to distinguish it from earlier eras of overseas expansion, such as the mercantilism of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries or the liberal age of ‘free trade’ colonialism of the mid-nineteenth century."
And what do you mean by the 'title is a mess also'?
172, your continuing sniping at other's perceived ignorance is not becoming. Your title not only is badly-capitalized, but it is meaningless. -- Zoe
The term “New Imperialism” is used in any high school-level history book covering nineteenth century imperialism. Read one. It’s a very common term.
I didn't make it up. It refers to the era of imperialism between 1871-1914.
Your periodization (1800-1899) would not be that precise, would it?
Wikipidia is not written for university doctors. (Despite my poor english I'm in fact one.) 172, you should write an article New Imperialism to explaain the concept. User:Ericd
Do you have any history books at home? Look at one on this era.
Zoe, you don’t know enough about this era to begin butchering that article. Can you find another medium to express you disdain for me?
Let Vera Cruz and I work this out without your bickering.
I did not butcher the article, I hardly made any editorial changes at all, almost all of them were cosmetic. I asked a lot of questions whcih deserve to be answered, which you find beneath you to answer. How difficult is it to just give me civil answers? -- Zoe
The article does not have an "anti-Western" bias, okay.
I suspect that your some over-zealous right-winger who’s on my case for some inane suspicions, that’s why.
It's "you're", 172, not "your". -- Zoe
Zoe can you have a look at Genocide
You're trying to get me banned? Grow up.
I’m probably being very naïve, as you are probably far to dense for a reasonable argument, but I’d like to correct your misconceptions regarding my contributions.
Read user Tannin’s statement once again:
"172, let's not get into a misunderstanding here. I would be the last person to call you a communist. Prior to your arrival, a good many of the history pages were rather shallow things, and showed little understanding of the interrelationship between history (in the traditional "kings and queens of England" sense) and the broad flow of economic change that underpins and (in general) controls the actions of statesmen, generals and inventors. You certainly do not fall into that trap! Your contributions have made significant inroads into the task of describing history as an interacting whole. Several others here have objected to what they see as a "communist bias" in your writing. In large part, these objections stem from two things:
1. Many people here have spent a lifetime steeped in a rather one-sided view of history - I'm talking about the sort of history that describes the Battle of the Bulge or Second Alamain in loving detail, but relegates Stalingrad to a footnote and doesn't even bother to mention Kursk; the sort of history that thinks Jethro Tull invented the seed drill and therefore we had an Industrial Revolution - and on reading the sort of thing that you write, they (very naturally) tend to say oh, this isn't what I'm used to seeing, therefore it must be wrong.
2. You tend to write large slabs of text which is perfectly comprehensible if one concentrates but far from easy reading, particularly as it is liberally laced with the jargon of political economy. Many people see key words or phrases like "bourgeoise", "hegemony", or "accumulation of surplus" and (a) don't really understand them, and (b) assume that because the two or three Marxist or Leninist tracts they happen to have glanced at are filled with these same words, that the present work is more of the same. As I see it, the challenge is not to write long entries that are technically correct but so complex, wordy, and jargon-filled that no-one reads them (any fool with half an education can do that), but to translate the specialised jargon of Marxian political economy and materialistic history into terms that that are readily accessable to the ordinary, non-specialist reader, and in doing so to bear in mind that any given article should not aim at detailed perfection at some far off future time to the exclusion of readability and usefulness at the present time - changes should, in other words, be sufficiently incremental that the article as a whole remains useful in the meantime. "
In the mean time, grow up and quit accusing me of being an ideologue whenever I explain a concept with which you are not familiar. Your charges are very typical of non-academic readers of history.
-- ~Don't you mean "with which you are not familiar"? Honestly, I've always found that people who tell others to "grow up" need to follow their own advice. Zoe mercilessly edits even my poor Pokemon pages, but she's usually right, and she ALWAYS has a point. If you still have a _need_ to read/write some flames, might I suggest The Ultimate Flame? AnnieKat
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Little typo. That doesn't matter on a user page. 172
Zoe just has a vendetta against me because she suspects me of being a Marxist and suspects that I'm injecting a Marxist point of view in various articles. I posted the above statement from Tannin so that she’d be able to realize that she has come to a misunderstanding.
Well, if she DOES have a vendetta (which I doubt, professional disagreements rarely ferment into vendettas), insulting her certainly isn't going to help the situation. If someone can't handle constructive criticism, that's their problem. Name-calling on their talk page is not the solution.
Come on. We're all adults here (except me), and I think we all know how to behave and what's right (Marxist or no). Constructive criticism fosters communication and growth within a community. Pointless (and endless) arguments do not.
If you feel the need to discuss this further, please go to _my_ Talk page. I will be more than willing to argue until the Gates of Hades fall down, if that's what pleases you. If Zoe goes looking for it, that's her problem. But can we please stop the name-calling? AnnieKat
- Someone else said "until Hell freezes over" but that's another story :-).User:Ericd
- No that's Adlai Stevenson at the UNO during the Cuban Missile Crisis. User:Ericd
- Hey guys - is this really the best place to have this discussion? Battle it out on the Wikipedia:IRC channel. Or at least move this to your own talk pages. --mav
That's what I've asked him to do. We'll see if he complies. ;) Annie
Zoe, that was blantant vandalism. Will you just leave me alone with your sarcastic remarks.
Blatant vandalism? What blatant vandalism? What did Zoe ever do to you? The One who Purrs... and Scratches
Annie I confess I am the vandalist. I'm also trostkist and ignorant where do I sent money order for russian space travel ? Ericd
How do I join the mailing list ? Ericd
Ericd continues to accuse me of being biased regarding New Imperialism; yet he has not substantiated his claims. He has vandalized my user page and called me a terrorist on many others. He has created a page on Linda Lovelace and the Congo Free State, mocking an episode of history in which up to 10 million might have died. He harasses me when ever I make any contribution, whenever I engage in dialogues with other users.
Regarding that New Imperialism page, you accused me of having an anti-Western bias. Others today have accused me of having the converse bias. That’s reassuring to me.
Please, drop your animosity toward me or at least get a more creditable contributor to join your lynch mob. Your hostility and false allegations are the reason that I am so defensive when I work with anyone else. I feel that they have been misled by your charges.
I have been rude to in the past because I considered your charges blatantly vindictive. I’m sorry for the past rudeness.
What the heck? When did Eric vandalize your user page? *goes to look at the logs* Annie
If you write me a list of questions pertaining to my contributions, I will politely answer each one. Your question regarding the name "New Imperialism" is answered on the user page.
I subscribed the mailing list. Ericd
Zoe: I'm directing this message to you as well since you have question the name "New Imperialism".
I’m familiar with the origins of the word “imperialism”; that’s why I keep deleting that explanation on my talk page. But it has come into common usage since then. Look up any dictionary definition. For instance, mercantilism is now considered one form of imperialism in particular. New Imperialism is now considered an era of imperialism between 1871-1914.
I don’t know why this is such a contentious issue for you. The term “New Imperialism” is so common because this field of history has been so controversial and the focal point of a rich tradition of historical literature and theory. New Imperialist historiography has in large part been devoted to what role the over-accumulation of surplus capital by the rich played in this phenomenon, and what role New Imperialism played in spurring World War I. To imperial critic J.A. Hobson’s credit, his controversial charges have spurred a great deal of theories and studies regarding this era. The study of New Imperialism has been essential to Lenin’s critique of capitalism, and critiques of his analysis of the amalgamation of industry have been central to the work of many anti-Marxian historians. One of the most prominent to these anti-Marxian historians was William L. Langer, who emphasized the role of mass-psychology earlier in the twentieth century. He uses the term "New Imperialism" as well.
Look at Ericd's contribution:
An anonymous user removed the content of the text, making light of mass-murder.
The anonymous was myself 188.8.131.52 is ip number. (normaly it's ping of death proof). Of course I removed the text this was pure joke. Ericd
184.108.40.206 is not the only one to criticize Ericd's vandalism:
"Ericd, please do not vandalize 172's user page, this is a violation of our policy. And yes, copying large amounts of text repeatedly qualifies as vandalism. It also wastes DB space on the Wikipedia server. --Eloquence"
Here's a Columbia University site referring to "New Imperialism":
220.127.116.11 = Ericd
That's strange. Ericd condemns himself for vandalism.
I'm tired of all of this. Can I make peace with both of you?
Self contradiction I may have more complex personnality than yours :)
I do no such thing; I revert articles to improve them, just like everyone else. You're just looking at me through a biased guise.
Do you honestly think that Vera Cruz's article on New Imperialism is more understandable? If so, then why (and being shorter is not an adequate answer). Go read the current version of New Imperialism; the flaws have been corrected by another user and me. Editing that page turned out to be a more viable solution than removing 90% of it arbitrarily, which I rightfully fought like any good contributor.
Do you honestly think that an article on Congolese history should not describe an overview of changes in Congolese society? Go look at the page on the History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; my contributions are largely intact.
Do you not think that charges of genocide in Africa belong in the genocide page? Go look at the genocide page; my contributions are largely intact.
I have gotten into edit wars over these issues. Disregard the personality conflicts and answer the above questions. I have gotten into edit wars mostly over personality issues, conflicts that began largely with your half-baked charges of “Communist bias” that have inspired many others to delete my "POVing" when they barely understand the issue at hand. The reason that those contributions are intact is that after a while informed contributors inform my detractors that little bias was evident.
I doubt that I will contribute anything else to Wikipedia. I'll be going back to work anyway next week. That’s a loss, as I am an actual PhD historian. I do, however, want to maintain my former contributions.
- Finally, something he's said that actually makes some sense... in my experience, PhD's in History are a little... stuffy. Yes, rather. As for contributions... I think sticking to laymen's terms will do this Wikipedia some good. Annie
- Zoe how much do you earn per hour babysitting Wikipedia ;-) BF
- None, unfortunately. But then, if I was being paid, it probably wouldn't be enough. :-) -- Zoe
I commend the latest changes to the article on New Imperialism that I started. These changes are positive and do not leave the article a skeleton.
I doubt that I will get into so many conflicts once people realize that I’m not a Communist who writes exclusively in the jargon of Historical Materialism. Before, I was criticized for having a Communist bias. That half-baked charge is dying down. As for the use of technical terms, I don’t use terms in that article that you wouldn’t find in a Britannica. Check one out; you’d probably find their article articles on history even more “technical”.
- No, thank you. -- Zoe
Thanks, I'm glad to be back. I had a very relaxing 3 week vacation, then got back yesterday and plugged in a few articles and passages I wrote on vacation. Once a wikipediholic, always a wikipediholic?
I hope your holidays went well. :-) --KQ
Zoe, please take a look at my comments on Southern Expedition Army Group by Vera Cruz and let me know what you think. I am off to sleep. Nite. Danny
Response to your question about Clonaid posted on the talk. Thanks for your question. --Qaz
Hi Zoe, I noted you moved the 'Lord John Russell page. The re-direct should solve any problems, but his name throws up an interesting problem. He was and is universally known as Lord John Russell, never ever John Russell. A student searching for his name on Wiki would never ever look for him under John Russell (they wouldn't even think of him under that name!) I know Wiki's policy on using titles but in his case, people think of the 'Lord' not as a title but as part of his name, a bit like the way people would know instinctively who 'John F Kennedy' was but not John Kennedy, or Edward VIII as Edward or the Duke of Windsor, not 'David', his actual name, or Pope John XXIII, not Angelo Roncalli. I'm not cribbing on the change, just wondering does Wiki cover exceptions, such as his, where 100% of users treat 'Lord' as his name, not a title, and would be completely puzzled by any other name! Best wishes. I will get around to Parnell, when I have the chance. (I have to go through Robert Kee's biography of him, the Laurel and the Ivy first. If you are interested in Parnell, it is worth reading. A very easy, well written read, one of the best biographies I've ever read.) Cheers. JTD 08:16 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
yeah, I realise that, Zoe. Just wondering in terms of other figures who might crop up in the future whose title is treated in popular usage as part of their name. Do we drop the title, or do a re-direct using both forms of name? God, I have become wikified when I am asking this sort of question 5 hours after I planned to go to bed. Good night. (I daren't even look out the window to see has dawn hit here yet. AAAAAgh. It has. JTD 08:24 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
You wrote that talk pages should never be deleted. I disagree, but I'll let you have your way with the Patents talk page. I modified it to give a little bit of organization though. Talk pages can become incredibly convoluted, and deleting dead topics is very helpful. Sometimes a "talk" discussion no longer has any relation to the article (if a section of the article was deleted) and it is very unlikely that the same issue will arise again once it is settled this one time. Anyway, we should at least note that something is a dead topic so that it can be put at the end of the talk page and ignored from this point forwards...except as a historical curiosity. adam
- Adam -- Your decision to delete the substance of the Patents Talk page was ill-advised: The issues being discussed therein were raised by your POV commentary in the Patents article, and those issues are far from resolved, much less "dead." Indeed, if anything, your POV commentary should be removed from the Patents article to the Patents Talk page. Preferably, you should edit or delete your POV commentary in lieu of deleting the (still relevant) discussion about that commentary. -- NetEsq 19:45 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
- Added -- I noted that Adam did in fact delete his POV commentary, but by that point the discussion had moved beyond simple deletion of that commentary. In any event, the deletion of the content from the Talk Page was still ill-advised: The issues being discussed therein were far from resolved, much less "dead." -- NetEsq 19:54 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with your comments on Sinitic western comparative philosophy. Do you think we should suggest the page be deleted? I tried to edit it to make it sound a little more like an encyclopedia article, but -- not being the original author -- I still don't really understand what it is saying or why it is here. Slrubenstein
Making a wiki video store I see =) BF 05:49 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)
- LOL. Well, mainly Academy Award nominees. -- Zoe
Hi Zoe, I see you say on the article page that the name of Lord Fitzalan was Edmund Bernard Howard. Joseph Robins in Champange and Silver Buckles: The Viceregal Court at Dublin Castle 1700-1922 gives his name as Edmund Bernard Talbot. I thought Talbot was the correct surname as well. Are you sure it was Howard? (Or maybe he was Lord Talbot before becoming Lord Fitzalan! The British and their damned confusing titles!) I haven't changed it in case you are correct. I'm putting in a link to a page on the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I'll link it up to the Howard page anyway; if it is wrong we can always to a re-direct.
PS - Have you seen the latest 'fun' on the Irish potato famine page? My historian colleagues here don't know whether to laugh their heads off, or be very angry, at Stevertigo's version of Irish history. They are all agreed on one thing; no way can we let such an almost comically biased and over the top version of Irish history stand! Who says Wiki isn't fun (and infuriating) sometimes!!!