User talk:Zoe/archive 9

Are you checking up on me, or just harrassing me?
 * Neither. I'm looking at Recentchanges, I click on things that strike me as possibly interesting, I make an attempt to interpret the situation, I make my opinions known. I then get an e-mail asking me to see about unblocking the address, which is the first I was aware that you had blocked it. I looked over this IP's past contributions (which stretch back over a year and seem like perfectly reasonable contributions from a light user on various science subjects), and I see nothing to justify a ban. One angry comment, yes, after a torrent of insults from you.


 * It was an inappropriate comment, yes, but would have all been avoided by a little WikiLove and AssumeGoodFaith. If you'd prefer to bring this matter to the mailing list, I will be happy to do so, but I have no interest in punishing you or the anonymous science contributor. I have interest only in a smoothly functioning Wikipedia, and I think that many of us would benefit from taking a breather more often when we're tempted to don the flame suit. (That goes for me, too.) --Brion 05:55 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

I did not insult this person. All I did was to suggest that the article needed work, which he refused to do, then started abusing me. -- Zoe


 * First, you deleted information from the article under only the comment "wikify". Then, you told them that their work creating the article was "basically useless" if they "don't bother" to look up the full names, that the presence of names with initials in them would "make the Wikipedia look bad"; and repeated the removal without yourself offering to do the work you demanded. If that's not insulting, it certainly can be interpreted as very unwelcoming. Look, I'm not interested in fighting over this, so let's hang up our gloves and give it a rest, eh? --Brion


 * I never anticipated that deleting those names in their first iteration, which were basically initials or just last names, would cause such a hassle. That's why I used "wikify", it wasn't an attempt to hide anything.  When 172 put them back, I told him that all he had to do was give us full names and a little context, but he decided to be abusive.  -- Zoe


 * Alight, I'm going to have to call you on this because I'm honestly curious. Why do you believe that a longtime contributor on science topics is one and the same as the infamous 172 who caused trouble in recent months? --Brion

This anonymous person, in Talk:Kurt Wüthrich:
 * you're meddling in an area where you can't even contribute the time of a Google search

172, in the New Imperialism brouhaha, kept telling me to "go read a history book and learn something before you start meddling". Sounds like the same mindset. -- Zoe
 * I've never really interacted with 172, but "you're meddling..." seems most reminiscent of DW/?Elliot?/Black Widow to me. Tuf-Kat

-- Juche is North Koreas guiding ideology. Do a yahoo or a google search for it and you&#8217;ll find a lot of information about it from pro-North Korean sources and from less cult-like Western outlets. I&#8217;m surprised that there isn&#8217;t a separate article about this philosophy. That&#8217;s probably why I didn&#8217;t explain the concept in the article about Kim Jong Il, which I largely wrote in its entirety.

If you want we could write an article about this topic. Otherwise, I&#8217;m not really in the mood for Juche today.

172

Regarding the above conversation, I feel the need to remind you that I wasn&#8217;t upset with the questions you raised regarding the New Imperialism article, I was upset with the uninformed and virulent criticism.

I kept repeatedly explaining why my fellow historians distinguish this era from other periods of imperial expansionism such as the mercantilist drives of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries or Britain&#8217;s gradual, informal and trade-based empire building of the mid-Victorian era, but you wouldn&#8217;t believe me and you appeared unwilling to research this era independently to address your own skepticism. Instead, you made a lot of accusations of biases because you were under the inane impression that explaining complex historical developments in their economic, political, and cultural context somehow constituted a leftwing bias.

History is very complex and many historians sometimes don't realize this. Expressing the ethos of the late nineteenth century Romantic Age, the old nationalistic historians were under the impression that chronicling tales of great men doing great things constituted good historical studies. Now in the post-Cold War era, a lot of lay readers of history, particularly those well-versed in the single-party dictatorships of the twentieth century, are still under the simplistic impression that the histories of eras that we don&#8217;t find too attractive were tales of bad men doing bad things.

Thus, I&#8217;m not an apologist for dictators, but a proponent of good analysis of history. In that sense, I&#8217;d find an article about someone like Robert Mugabe intolerable if his actions are criticized on the basis of values-laden judgments rather than explain in the context of the material, political, and cultural realities of HIS society. Historical actors must be understood within the contexts of their eras, not our own cultural obsessions.

Thus, I completely reject being characterized as &#8220;infamous.&#8221; Apart from this website I have a reputation of being low-key, open-minded, and fair-minded as a historian.

Perhaps I was a bit too defensive, but with your criticism attracting an army of critics and editors at once and with Vera Cruz cutting and pasting my text and rearranging it in the most disorganized and incoherent manner that he possibly could, I was being attacked on too many fronts to be tactful.

Once Otolan88, Tannin, Sulberstein started editing New Imperialism with me it reached a much more optimal state. They have an impressive grasp on that era and couldn&#8217;t understand what the controversy you generated was about in the first place.

172

--- Reading the above conversations, I also get the idea that you&#8217;re accusing me of being an anonymous user contributing to science articles.

This time you&#8217;re over-estamating my abilities. I would have little to say regarding that. Maybe a little inorganic chemistry that I remember from undergrad, but that&#8217;s about it. Not my area of expertise!

172

By the way, I appreciate your editing of the Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein articles. I wrote the entirety of the Kim Jong Il article and posted at least over half of the content pertaining to Hussein.

More informative than the usual, sensational articles about these two world leaders, wouldn&#8217;t you say?

172

- Ah, but I did ask, because I care. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi --- Dear Zoe: How does one merge an article? Do we just paste one and merge it to the other or is there more to it? I noticed tha The Craft and The Craft (movie) might have to be mergered, probably retaining the latter name.

Thank you and God bless you

Sincerely yours, Antonio The Screamer Martin

Zoe, I wouldn't spend too much time fixing the Cleopatra articles, I think they are completely made up (lifespans of thousands of years). Anything solely by the one bogus author ought to just be deleted till someone comes along who knows enough about the Ptolemies to write something meaningful. -- Someone else 03:26 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * oops, as I see you've already noticed! -- Someone else 03:27 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

Read the Talk page on UNIVAC 1105 - RTC 22:43 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

--- Thanks Zoe for looking at the user page.

172

Zoe, I was just adding a Helen Keller quote to my User:Kingturtle page, when I thought I'd read the Wiki article on Ms. Keller. After reading the article, I considered adding to it some information about Patty Duke playing both roles in her life. But I couldn't find the right wording, and I gave up. Moments later, I am browsing the 'Recent changes' pages, and lo-and-behold, you had *just* created an article for The Miracle Worker which discusses the Patty Duke point. This is called synchronicity and it is quite enjoyable. Kingturtle 03:42 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, I meant to mention it a while ago. I was talking some time ago to Mav about the yearly lists and he said that the information he puts on them comes from you. (Well done, BTW). One problem I notice is that when we mention someone has died, we include their title without the qualification of 'ex' or 'former' where they are no longer the office holder. This could lead to some confusion; eg. someone looking at 1945 was told that David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, died. But he hadn't been PM for over twenty years but someone who doesn't know might think he died in office. Similarly, we mentioned the death of Daniel Joseph Moynihan, US Senator. Because of his involvement in politics and my knowledge of it, I would not have realised that actually he wasn't a senator when he died. I think it is worth qualifying titles to remove any confusion, so that we know whether they died in or out of office. I did adjust the 1945 page to put 'ex' or 'former' beside each. Otherwise people who know they were 'ex' might presume that is always the case and not realise that in the cases of Spencer Percival as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or William McKinney as President of the United States that they did die in office. What do you think? STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:53 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I can put "former" when I know (or remember to do it :-) ) -- Zoe

Thank you for wikifying Chemical Ali. And thanks to coalition forces for "liquifying" him. --Uncle Ed 19:18 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, on Vladimir Lenin, he was born in 1870 under the Julian Calendar on April 10. Outside of Russia, most of the world was using the Gregorian Calendar by that time, and so it was April 22 in most of the rest of the world. (both were Orthodox Good Fridays). I don't quite know how you might handle that on the "Day" pages, but I've had a thought about it on the biography pages (click his link to see if you like it). On the day pages you might put something like (10 - date in the Julian Calendar on which Lenin was born) and (22 - date in the Gregorian Calendar on which Lenin was born). -- Someone else 03:59 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

I don't believe in reincarnation... RK removed text of mine from the talk page, it was not a "Difference of opinion" it was vandalism of what I wrote. Dietary Fiber


 * That is not honest, Dietary Fiber. You went off-topic; so following standard Wikipedia protocol, I moved that small part of our discussion to the Talk section of your personal page. That is the way we do things here. You then deleted all of that, including your own words, and labelled it all as "spam".  Now you come here and claim that I am a "vandal"?  That's insane. Get a grip, man.  RK

Why are you reverting to Dietary Fiber??? STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:47 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

It was a blind rollback from his User contributions page. It must have been a Susan Mason to Dietary Fiber rollback. If we do a rollback, does the most recent valid person's User contributions show them as the most recent contributor? -- Zoe

Jeez, talk about troll central here tonight! I wouldn't mind by I only logged on an hour ago to check something before I went to bed. Two hours later and I'm still here, sweeping up the rubbish. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:59 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

--- Re your message on my page:
 * Wikipedia:No offensive usernames -- Zoe

Please do not make fun of my name. It is harassment and illegal conduct that I am not willing to tolerate. Thank you.Olga Bityerkokoff -

This is sad. He could&#8217;ve written a handful of great articles in that time.

No worries. All these portraits of philosophers and composers are taken from public sources like university websites, or from n-th hand copies of copies of copies. Uri


 * Not all university websites are copyright-free. Thanks for reassuring me, though.  -- Zoe

Zoe -- I'm surprised that you thought there was no explanation for the removal of the Merovingians from the list of french monarchs. I put one in, and received the usual nasty responses on the talk page. Despite the fact that someone has added in some interesting references, I stand by the argument made when the page was created. The Merovingians aren't french, so they can't be french monarchs. The Fouracre book is good -- but I am also pretty certain that in this context, even Fouracre might agree that the Merovingians were Frankish kings in the area now known as France. We call it France because that's what it is now, not because it's what it was then. After all, when we say Rome in the context of say, 150 AD, we can be speaking of the Empire or the city -- it certainly doesn't meant that today's Rome encompasses the same territory 9or there would be no France!).

The Capetian reference is wonderful, because it proves my point that the Capetians made a definite propaganda attempt to coopt the CArolingians and Merovingians into their heritage -- note that the book was commissioned during the buildup of the Hundred Years' war, when England's claims to the French throne had to be denied in no uncertain terms. Whether my changes stay will reflect whether the wikipedia is in the hands of backward-thinking nationalists or forward-thinking would-be scholars who are aware of trends in the field. FOr example, did you know that many historians now see the merovingians not as part of the middle ages, but as part of late antiquity? That's a period not seen in many textbooks, but it is recognized more and more, and there are conferences, journals, etc. I doubt the Erics and Elliots will recognize it, though. JHK

Hiya Zoe, Hope you have recovered from the Adam Attack last night. On the issue of the said troll, I hope I am not overreacting here but I see the History of the Soviet Union has been rewritten for 'readability' by 131.247.157.115. God forbid that it is another of Adam's mafia under yet another of Adam's vandalistic fraternity. The way the change was described rang a few bells with the excuse used by Adam's Vera Cruz creation whenever he screwed up 172's page on new imperialism. Do you have access to check if this user IP is any of those associated with Adam's family of vandals? (If it is, just how many personalities does professional assholes like Adam/Bridget/Vera/Susan/Dietary have? Between that asshole and Michael vandalising files all over the place, this is getting crazy.)

On another point, I notice someone has downloaded images of Queen Elizabeth II and President Mary McAleese of Ireland. I'm a BIG fan of images, but I have doubts as to whether these images can be used. I checked with both Buckingham Palace and Áras an Uachtaráin some time ago about images. Pictures of the Queen aren't available from the Palace but from copyrighted sources. Áras an Uachtaráin refused wikipedia permission to use any of its Irish presidential images. The image of Mary McAleese is the official presidential portrait and comes from the Áras website. I hope that whomever downloaded the images found copyright-free sources or had permission to download them. Maybe the Áras relented but they certainly were clear when I checked the answer was an unambiguous 'no', because the free rewrite capability meant they could not control what was said about her; they were furious we mentioned her friendship with Queen Elizabeth and her desire to host an Irish royal state visit and disputed it, until I pointed out that it was based on an interview Mary gave to me which was published during the 1997 Irish presidential election. (The press office aide muttered an audible "shit" as she tried to cover the phone receiver, then muttered 'OK. I think I remember her saying that all right!') So, reluctant though I am to say it, I have my doubts about the origins of the pictures and their copyright status. There are many sources that would be more than willing to turn a blind eye to the use of copyright images here, indeed you positively love to be on wiki (they would practically beg for coverage.) But BP and particularly the Áras sound like the sort of people who might make a fuss. I certainly don't want the Áras press office on to me accusing me of having taken the images after I was told I could not. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:04 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to IPs, unfortunately, I wish I did. As for the pictures, I suggest you bring them up in the respective talk pages, wait a day or so for response, then delete them from the article pages and put them on Votes for deletion - Zoe

You are quick. I was just about to copy the anti-Frogintern for my personal files and it was gone. It was funny. Danny 00:34 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I still pray that Jesus will come into your life and you will know the true meaning of his wonderful spirit in your heart and that you will be baptised in His precious name and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Love and God's sweet blessings, Sister Zoe. User:Black Widow.

You made the same change on BB and BB gun that I was about to make! LittleDan


 * Hello, Zoe, this be Rick Wilson mailto:f.g.wilson@sbcglobal.net ...you left me a note asking for one less picture in relation to Rachel Corrie, a singularly important hero of the 21st century. I respectfully disagree.
 * I don't know if I have a user page or would have to create one, and don't much care; Wikipedia is too narcissistic as it is. Rather paranoid as well, as I actually found a talk page I'd created today, swept clean by an anonymous editor, who evidently thought better of it and reinserted my content (see talk:State terrorism).
 * If I had one complaint about Wikipedia, beyond the important one, the obvious handicap of its being a Western-biased institution which believes itself "neutral," it is the forementioned narcissism, coupled with its utterly fathomless, nitpicking pedantry.

Rachel Corrie, a singularly important hero of the 21st century -- thank you for the biggest laugh of my day. -- Zoe

From Rick Wilson mailto:f.g.wilson@sbcglobal.net Bring your ear real close, Zoe, and listen up: I haven't the tolerance most peace activists do for you Rachel-haters, so I'll break it down for you: you, being one of the more ubiquitous Reactionaries in Wikipedia, and supporters of state terror, will figure prominently in the evidence logs I'm compiling for the International Criminal Court. Peace.

This century is less than 3 years old. Ericd 03:40 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Zoe (shhhh. listen . . . hear the silence. . . no Adam vandalism anywhere!!!)

Anyway, I've come across a few naming problems re senior clerics who are so widely known by {title} {name} that most people wouldn't have a clue what their actual first name was. I've made my suggestion for a naming convention re senior members of the clergy (specifically in this case Roman Catholic cardinals!) on the Naming Conventions (Names and titles) talk page. Have a look and see what you think. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:53 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie, a singularly important hero of the 21st century!!!! Please tell me that is a joke or someone who wrote it was smoking too much dope. My stomach ached when I read it, from laughing. God, they'll be demanding we call her Saint Rachel, hero of the Palestinian Oppressed, and oppressed everywhere next. Move other Mother Theresa, an all-American girl hero will beat you to canonisation!!! STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:53 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * you don't know how tempting it was for me to create that redirect... ;-) Martin


 * God, I know. Here, I'll make them spit: So why are you canonizing this person? Why not the fawning articles and hagiography for poor Carlo Giuliani? Is it just because she was an attractive white-bread All-American girl and not a marginal, semi-homeless Italian? - Montr&eacute;alais

Ah you see, Rachel Corrie may be only a minor footnote in the conflict, but she an all-American white blue eyed middle class blonde footnote and that makes all the difference to white middle class poser-revolutionaries. If she was black, fat, working class and god-forbid not American she would have been forgotten in the time it takes to eat a big mac. You get rather large American middle aged tourists who are slagged off in Europe because they come on their 'all-Europe' tours and think that spending three hours in Germany they can say they have 'done' Germany, standing in front of Big Ben or in front of Buckingham Palace for a picture on a five hour trip means they have 'done' England, or buy plastic leprechauns, green hats and ties, green trousers and drink guinness in phoney tourist-targeted 'Oirish' pubs, and they have 'done' Ireland. Some of the Rachelites are like that; their middle class liberal credentials mean that if they spend some time (a couple of weeks, a month, maybe even a couple of months) in Palestine with the natives they think they are one of the natives, except that when things get rough they can always call on the American Embassy to get them out of trouble, call Daddy to send over some travellers' cheques or put more money in the American Express account. Then after they have 'done' radicalism and it is term time again it is back to the US to finish their college 'experience' then get a nice well paid middle class job, where they can still be radical in the chitchat at their dinner parties or by voting for Ralph Nader.

That isn't to say they aren't sincere. But it is cosy white middle class sincere, with the escape route of airline ticket, cosy middle class career in the end, and an American Express card in the back pocket. They have a let out option. The real people there don't. Rachel Corrie means so much because she was 'one of us' who died, not one of the natives, one of us. Cool. The ultimate sacrifice. That'll show the Israelis! It is that sort fo blinkered hero-worship that produces the likes of the "singularly important hero of the 21st century" crap analysis. She was just a middle class American kid who didn't jump out of the way of the bulldozer in time. But then why should she? I mean, they wouldn't kill one of us now. We're Americans. Israelis don't kill Americans. And especially not white middle class blonde American women!!!" STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:30 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

From Rick Wilson mailto:f.g.wilson@sbcglobal.net I don't know who you are, Zoe, but if you consider my calling out Wikipedia for complicity in the crimes of Bush, then yes, I am "trying to cause trouble." To the degree that inaction or outright support of these crimes are, too, prosecutable by the International Criminal Court, I support such prosecution, and find Wikipedia a vast resource of evidence.


 * Eeeeeeek! I'm so frightened! *runs away* - Montr&eacute;alais


 * I'm compiling evidence for the extremely non-neutral International Criminal Court, from the vast stores of Wikipedia and those of its users whose content evidences criminal complicity in the crimes of Bush, his senior leadership, and his Coalition. The cowardly among you can breathe your sighs of relief that for most of you, the eventual outreach of the Court will mean no more than public shaming (as though that were not enough for anyone with compunction and conscience). I seriously doubt that Montrealass here would go to the gallows with that smirk on his face as did a few of his compatriots-in-spirit at Nuremburg.  Rick Wilson mailto:f.g.wilson@sbcglobal.net

Oh no, the scary man compared me to Nazis. And he altered my name so as to say "ass" instead of "-ais"! Break, O heart, to be run through with such rapierlike wit! - Montr&eacute;alais

We'll check the NAMBLA membership rolls for your name as well. Rick Wilson mailto:f.g.wilson@sbcglobal.net


 * And an insult to my sexual orientation! I knew I could count on you, Ricky. So what time do you get off work? You got a purty mouth. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * Wow, never knew I was a war criminal. I guess I should move to Argentina now.  -- Zoe


 * Oh the joy of nutters! Anyway, I see the Rachel Corrie photomontage shrine is back. :-(


 * Am I going to have to change from learning Russian to Spanish? I think I might be joining you in Argentina, see you there! -- John Owens

Paraguay or Brazil are good destinations to. Ericd 21:34 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Now we have two bloody Rachel Corrie shrines!!! The one on the main article page is back again (Fucking hell. Do those people EVER learn!!!) And now there is a user called Rachel Corrie, just so more bloody pictures can be shown off. For crying out loud. This is becoming a sick joke. ÉÍREman 01:58 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

I have put the User:RachelCorrie page on the Votes for Deletion page. I don't think there are words to describe how stomach-churning repulsive I find the idea of anyone using the usernic of a recently dead woman. And as the contents show, it is simply yet another glorification shrine. ÉÍREman 02:41 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

--- Re: Booker T. Washington. Fine. Delete all my crap then. I used to care. Since all you want to do is find fault with it, I really don't care anymore. I've put far too much thought and energy into this place. Goodbye. -- Dave Farquhar 02:47 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure why User:Zoe is demanding information on these photos. According to the list, she is one of the volunteer Wikipedia Administrators who should know that that is not his responsibility. There is a discussion underway trying to resolve this so that Zoe or others don't delete photos in error and without just cause. Perhaps Zoe should join the discussion with his valued opinions rather than upset contributors like Dave Farquhar Olga Bityerkokoff


 * His? -- Zoe


 * Your User page, as best I could read, does not declare your gender. I sincerely apologize if I offended you with my error. At the same time, the following statement by you on Votes for deletion is inappropriate behavior and not acceptable conduct for a User at Wikipedia. Please refrain from doing so and remove this unwarranted comment. Thank you.Olga Bityerkokoff


 * And the above "person" should also be deleted because not only is he a troll, but his name violates the obscene user name dictum. -- Zoe

Re: Washington again. Zoe, get some tact. You can correct the misstep and politely point out the mistake. Or you can turn it into a chance to tar and feather someone. An LoC-provided image without the proper tagline won't get Wikipedia taken down, and you know it. In the event of a violation that somebody cares about, you get a cease and desist order and you correct the problem. Period.

But you're more interested in teaching me about consequences. Well, there are consequences to torquing off contributors as well. The Wikipedia doesn't grow as quickly as it should. -- Dave Farquhar 03:10 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No offensive usernames -- Zoe

Please do not make fun of my name. It is harassment and illegal conduct that I am not willing to tolerate. Thank you.Olga Bityerkokoff - BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! -- Zoe

I am sorry you don&#8217;t like my name and that is your private affair. However, both of your messages left on my User Talk page is not acceptable conduct by a user at Wikipedia and is a behavior I will not tolerate. Please cease and desist immediately. Thank you.Olga Bityerkokoff

--- I see you still have not removed your offensive comments with respect to my name on the Votes for deletion despite my polite request. This is my last request that you do so immediately. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Olga Bityerkokoff

- To User:Zoe Your derogatory comments are inappropriate and libelous. Any further comment of this nature by you directed at me stated herein or elsewhere will result in my proceding immediately with all legal remedies available to me in accordance with the laws of the United States. AND DO GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. User:Olga Bityerkokoff -

With respect to your comment concerning my Canadian attorneys, please contact them personally through www.mrslaw.com. Would you like the name, address, and web site for my New York attorneys as well? Olga Bityerkokoff

I insist on being helpful: Stairs, Dillenbeck 330 Madison Ave. New York, NY

See also: Stanley Stairs

To quote from an Irish song, ''Sue me, sue me, come up and do me. Not that you'd know how.''

I've been rather bitchy on Olga's main page. Or maybe not bitchy enough. I can't quite make up by mind. ÉÍREman 05:17 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * can't find a website for them, Ron, would you do the honors? -- Zoe