User talk:BZ(Bruno Zollinger)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. REDIRECT Template:pp-usertalk

do you EVER do anything else than write long pretentious gibberish on wiki discussion pages?

Yes, Anonyma, sometimes I write short pretentious gibberish.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

heh, well put.

And yet you apparently see no irrational contradiction in being pretentious about gibberish.

No, Anonyma, I don't.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Spinoff from Runyon discussion

Personal to Mr Zollinger: I appreciated your response to my comment on Runyon’s talk page. I am about to post a reply.

I started to add one more paragraph to my reply along these lines: Both of us see the possibility that one of Runyon’s formative influences was religion, whether eastern, western, or whatever. Yet I can’t find a word about this anywhere on the web. The same would apply to most biographical articles, or to most articles of any kind. Yet religion plays a pretty important role in why people do and say what they do and say. How come it is so rigorously excluded from discussion? Or is it deliberately excluded? Could it be that very few people ever see its relevance the way you, as it appears to me, and I do? Isn’t religion just one more scientific fact that should be included in the study of a man? I’m not saying that religion is a scientific fact, or that it isn’t, but rather that the study of its influence on a man or on men should be scientific, dispassionate.

I am leaving this off the Runyon article because it touches him only tangentially and indeed no more than it touches anyone else covered in Wikipedia. But I’d be interested in any comment you might have.

Thank you for your warm words. I agree with most of what you say but unlike you I do not think that the points that you raise touch the article only tangentially. And while it may well be true that they concern Runyon no more than anyone else covered in WP, I do not feel that this should prevent us from discussing them on the Runyon Talk page. But I will, of course, always be glad to hear from you also on this page.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your contribution

Posting sarcastically derisive messages to talk pages is irritating and unproductive. This seems to be your only contribution to Wikipedia; if you would like to help contribute your knowledge of Swiss history, please do so. Otherwise, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Mgreenbe 11:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point, Mgreenbe. Is it your personal opinion, or do you have the feeling that it is representative for the view prevailing in the US right now? In Switzerland, just as in England, "sarcastic" commentaries are not considered "unproductive". In Germany, on the other hand, people have always supported YOUR view. As to the French: If you want to know what they think of your opinion on this subject, I suggest that you turn to the original encyclopédistes. Diderot, Montesqieu, Voltaire et al. have commented on it at length.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A technical note

The older parts of conversations not directly related to my work in Wikipedia will periodically be parked on my ff pages. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Warmth (cont.)

Interesting. A son of mine said to me last year, when I told him from my SF-adventures in WIKIPEDIA: "Daddy, just start to write a screenplay for me." JaHn 08:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure it will make a great film, Jahn. True to life, universal message and all that. As the old song has it: Ein Film, wo alles logisch ist / Ein Film, der pädagogisch ist... --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Too bad, BZ. I don t know that song. It sounds nice to me, too. And if I ever finish the screenplay, it will have, with no doubt, the esprit of all of my sons. It s a lttle bit funny and it s a lttle bit sad: One of them believes apparently in accidents respectively in chance. At least he always answeres, when I try to tell him something about strange things: "It s an accident, Daddy." JaHn 20:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say he doesn't believe you? -- BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It s something like a running gag between him and me. But he knows that some things are strange ... JaHn 15:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything that's NOT strange if you look at it long enough, Jahn?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No. One foto in an exhibition with works from my son is titled "like there is something fundamentally wrong". JaHn 09:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say that STRANGE is the same as WRONG?? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case I mean "fundamentally wrong" is the same as strange, yes. JaHn 10:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, Jahn. But the question is whether strange is the same as wrong (and you can add any qualifier you want). --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, BZ, I can. As far, as I can see, WRONG is to a lot of people the same like STRANGE. To me STRANGE isn t WRONG. At least not generally. Most of my own fatal errors leads me to many astounding comprehensions. JaHn 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good, Jahn. So we both know something about STRANGE now: STRANGE isn't the same as WRONG. But, contrary to what you believe, this does not add anything whatsoever to what we know about WRONG. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I m not sure, either what s WRONG nor what s RIGHT. The Pioneer-Anomaly seems to me like there s something fundamentally WRONG. But, maybe it s RIGHT, because there s something STRANGE, something that s unknown. I don t know. JaHn 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You think I do, Jahn? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, BZ. But if You do, I wouldn t be very surprised about it ... YOU ARE WELCOME ANYWAY. ff JaHn 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

PS AND ANYWHERE. I can t follow simple minds. But I like the music of the band called Simple Minds. JaHn 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And ALWAYS, no doubt. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And ... AMEN. JaHn 10:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

AMEN. Of course. And I can't tell you how much I appreciate that ANYWAY of yours. Just to think, after all those terrible things I've done to the German people, you're still willing to talk to me. I am welcome ANYWAY. Talking about Aufsteller... --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrible? Well, BZ, I think, that anyone, who means, that Your words here are terrible, is living, at least, in an virtual ivory tower. Sometimes WIKIPEDIA reminds me on the Elois and the Morlocks. JaHn 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Morlocks? As your son would say: It's an accident, Daddy! This morning I found among my papers a quote from Halliwell's that I had intended to use in a commentary on The Time Machine: Surprisingly careful recreation of a period, and an undeniably charming machine, go for little when the future, including the villainous Morlocks, is so dull. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no need to disbelieve You. And so I see no reason, too. By the way, right now, I got a SMS from my son ... JaHn 20:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

... and now I do think: There can t be only Elois and Morlocks. There could be an other class, too. The man with that charming machine seems to me as one of them. JaHn 21:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, what do you know. After all your arguments to the contrary you suddenly understand that we are the sole "reason" for our behavior? How long will you remember it, Jahn? Half a day? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have it in mind, BZ. But ... I have seen something else under the sun ... JaHn 10:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We dance in a ring..., Jahn? OK, once more: You suppose, and the thing in the middle (if there really is such a thing, that is) supposes. But I do not suppose. Never did. I dance in the ring like everybody else, but that's all. Well I suppose you won't ever know what I'm talking about... --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe my time is going to come. JaHn 10:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A most unfortunate metaphor, Jahn. Your time is always there for the taking, but it won't "come". Reminds me of another misconceived trope: Teaching a lesson. A man can learn a lesson, but it certainly won't be the one that any lesson teacher has in mind. Wortklauberei, you say? You're wrong. More people are led astray by their own faulty metaphors than by all other errors put together. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That s what I mean with what I once wrote You in the German WIKIPEDIA about people which are glued to words. And somewhen thereafter I wrote a little bit about Wortklauberei. JaHn 12:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly... --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

... OK. JaHn 18:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that You-can-run-but-you-can't-hide babble, Jahn. Not only can you hide (who can read your thoughts?) but as a rule you can't come out of hiding even if you want to. You don't think so? Try making your thoughts or feelings known to a Wikipedian... --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Heavy, BZ. And, by the way, stupid as I am, it hurts me, time after time. But I don t want to believe that it s impossible. There must be some way out of here ... JaHn 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what's truly funny, Jahn? A million commentaries of mine couldn't say as much about the Deutsche Wikipedia as one single sentence from the likes of Herr Sandstein. But your German pals haven't figured that one out in all these years. Not even that! And don't bother to tell me that there are angles I might be missing in this respect. I must be missing a few screws, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time writing in the Deutsche Wikipedia, but even so, there's nothing that I don't see clearly concerning the Herren Sandstein & Co. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, BZ. No angels. But a lot of Elois, blue-eyed Elois ... JaHn 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

... ein gefundenes Fressen. How do they say that in English? JaHn 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No difference, Jahn, no difference whatsoever. You know, it looks like you're stuck in those dull film versions. If your memories of the book are a little hazy, it might pay you to reread at least the Epilogue. Word for word a treasure... --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only saw the movie with Rod Taylor. And I never read the book. But I just ordered it in my favorite bookstore. You know, You never gave me bad literary tips ... JaHn 15:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What a nice thing to say, Jahn. Thank you. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it s predominant worthless. As a user in the German WIKIPEDIA once wrote: "Die Wikipedia ist nicht dafür da, um Menschen zu helfen, sie ist nicht dafür da, Menschen zu informieren und sie ist nicht für das da, was Leser wissen wollen." JaHn 09:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, Jahn. What was the reaction? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Babble-babble. But predominant negative ... just a little bit more action as from the dully Elois. If You know, what I mean ... JaHn 09:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA (in a nutshell)

Wikipedia is the market that determines the true value of what is considered to be knowledge. It follows that at any given moment we have in front of us the best of all possible Wikipedias.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger)

RFC

I've started a Request for Comment page to discuss your disagreements with myself and other editors. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BZ(Bruno Zollinger). ←Hob 05:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re RFC. Interesting, Hob. Jahn will feel right at home. As for me, I am writing a commentary. I have no "disagreements" with anybody, and nobody is going to drag me into a "dispute". But don't let that stop you. Go ahead with your show. And don't worry if I don't participate. I'll read every word of it. Nothing that I like better.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re COMPLIMENTS. I do owe you a compliment though, Hob. In less than a day, and a Sunday at that, you have managed to read and understand all my commentaries in the American Wikipedia, write summaries of them, and compose this beautifully worded RFC. The talent! The energy! And what a compliment paid to me. I know authors who'd give their eyeteeth to have even one reader like you. I am looking forward to all the wonderful articles that Wikipedia will have when you'll finally get around to reading the books of Ursula K. Le Guin.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your ability to use sarcasm, consistently and even exclusively, is noted. I have read nearly all of Le Guin's fiction, and some of her nonfiction; I just don't happen to have read anything she wrote about that novel. Have you? What did she say? If you know, please explain on the talk page. As for the RFC, you certainly do have a disagreement and a dispute: other editors feel that it's worthwhile to follow Wikipedia rules and etiquette, and you disagree. ←Hob 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re DISAGREEMENTS. No, Hob, I do not have any. You may not agree with me but that does NOT mean that I have a disagreement with you. Sorry, if this is too difficult for you to understand. It sems to me that we just have a language barrier between us. In my language, people who can call my example of a dream "off topic" cannot have "read" the Lathe of Heaven. In your language they can. And in my language, I keep telling you what Ms Le Guin has said about that novel and other ones, giving you quotes and explanations and naming the books that you can find everything in. In your language, I don't. Can't be helped.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"I keep telling you what Ms Le Guin has said about that novel and other ones, giving you quotes and explanations and naming the books that you can find everything in": that isn't true in any language. You mentioned the titles of two books by Le Guin, and one book of essays about her. You did not quote or paraphrase any statements from those books at all, or describe any relevant content in them in any way. You did not quote or paraphrase any statements by Le Guin at all, except for "If fiction is how it says what it says, then useful criticism is what shows you how fiction says what it says", which is not a statement about her novels. The only time you contributed anything remotely resembling "what Ms Le Guin has said about that novel and other ones" was with two very brief quotes on the talk page for The Dispossessed. I will not discuss your definition of "off topic" with you any further because you've made it clear that you don't care what other editors think, nor do you care about the established practices of this project. And it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that if you've joined a collaborative project and nearly every editor you've interacted with has had a problem with what you're doing, there might actually be something wrong with what you're doing. ←Hob 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re WRONG. Right, Hob. And there might also be something wrong with what you and your friends are doing. Who knows.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, BZ: I felt right at home ... JaHn 03:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC) PS That reminds me, anyway, on (of?) the movie The wizard of Oz. I saw that film at first 1978, overthere, You know. The only two things that I can remember are two sentences, sayings (Sätze, Sprüche). The first: Follow the yellow brick road. And the second: There s no place like home ... JaHn 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can remember two passages from the film you're more than qualified to help with the editing of the Comparison article; provided you haven't read the book, of course. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I haven t read the book. And I saw the film only two times. At first at that time over there. And the second time (many years later) here, where I live, in Germany. Translated in the German language. I can tell You, BZ: In a way that was not the story that I remembered. JaHn 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bruno

I see from your contributions page that you have made 241 talk page edits, 1 edit to your user page, and no article edits ever. Bringing up difficult questions on a talk page before making the edit in the article is generally a good idea, but I think you would do us all a favour if you started making relevant changes to actual articles. That is what editing wikipedia is about!--Niels Ø 10:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Niels, I have explained my views on this roughly a hundred times, and I'm not exaggerating. One such explanation you can find in my posts to The Lathe of Heaven that you have archived because they were, in your words, not clear. Well, try as I might, clearer than that I can't write.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly which part of this archive are you directing me to? I don't get it.--Niels Ø 20:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re ARCHIVE. I don't know your archive, Niels. In my own copy everything is still on one page for easy reference. Even so, I don't see your problem. All my posts on article talk pages are clearly marked and properly signed. They fall into two classes:
(1) article-related commentaries referring to literature that I myself have read, citing passages and titles where necessary. If this will in time have an influence on the article, that's fine. If not, it will be the proof that more than the commentary was not needed. It's as simple as that.
(2) answers to criticism or attacks by other users. In this category you will find the answers to the points raised by you. You might also want to consider the following: Looking at the antagonism aroused by my commentaries on talk pages, just think what would happen if I let myself be talked into editing an article (don't worry, I won't). A commentary is an animal that Wikipedians have obviously not yet gotten used to. In 10 or 20 years they will. No hurry. It has taken other institutions centuries.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for intellectual commentary; they are for discussion about how to improve the encyclopedia articles:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. (WP:TPG)

That is the point I rasied at the top of this section, and that is the point I do not see answered in the pages you direct me to. So, please be more specific: What or where is your answer to that?--Niels Ø 10:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Re WHERE?. Right here, Niels (once again). There is this language barrier that I keep pointing to. In my language "guidelines" means guidelines. In other users's language this is apparently not the case. Besides, what keeps you, or anybody else, from doing exactly what these guidelines say, i.e. discuss with me or other users changes to its associated articles? I, for my part, would much prefer to do this instead of having to repeat again and again the same dreary arguments.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Commentary

Re COMMENTARY. In regard to those who do not figure it on their own: For most of the readers, a user talk is just like a ZIP-file. Therefore, a tool is needed in order to open it, and this tool is the visual commentary. Every important text does have it. From the bible to the user talk page of BZ. A visual commentary is not a talk or a chat, and there is no way it could be a personal offence or similar stuff. If it would be, a dictionary would call it talk, chat, or personal offence or similar stuff. But there is no entry in a dictionary that calls it thus. Should anyone not believe it, he should look it up.

visual commentary

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.157.35 (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

The Germans are coming. The Germans are coming... --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

At least, some of them are trying to come. But, like my time, it never will work so. However, BZ: You are in my mind. And, who knows, maybe not only in my mind ... JaHn 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page use warning

Please do not use talk pages such as Close reading for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re CLOSE READING. I can assure you that I have no intention of using this or any other article talk page for a general discussion of the topic, Rbellin, nor have I ever used an article talk page for such an aberrant purpose. May I suggest that you sit down and read the incriminated commentary slowly and calmly once again? I'm sure that you will see that, far from discussing anything in general, I have singled out and quoted a specific passage of the article, making clear that this passage, despite of representing a ridiculous tautology, serves a purpose in the more general context of furthering knowledge worldwide. Had I not done that, there would have been a danger that someone might be tempted to remove the passage from the article because of its obvious lack of sense. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disrupting article talk pages by using them as soapboxes. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Please note: You have not once edited an actual article. If you continue to post your commentaries to article talk pages without contributing anything to the encyclopedia, you may be indefinitely blocked, just as you were on the German language Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Deutschland Deutschland über alles... --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way: The song "Auf-er-stan-den aus Ru-i-nen" has the same "Versmaß" like "Deutsch-land Deutsch-land ü-ber al-les". Isn t it a nice coincidence? Dieter Hildebrandt and his crew made in their show "Scheibenwischer" once the "New German National Hymn". With the text of the Eastern German national hymn and the melody and the rhythm of the Western German area. But today that s "Schnee von gestern", as the old ones says, here in the village, where I live. JaHn 20:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jahn, Auferstanden aus Ruinen. How fitting... --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Close reading for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re INAPPROPRIATE. I'll be glad to accommodate you, Rbellin, but you really have to be a bit more specific. What exactly do you mean by "inappropriate"? Do you feel (like some users on this page) that I'm not giving enough examples and quotes to make my point? Or do you rather feel (like the various Anonymas) that I am giving too many? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Talk page guidelines, which editors have been directing you to for many months, and note the boldface second sentence: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Talk pages exist only to discuss article improvements; they are not for our personal opinions or "commentaries" of the kind you ceaselessly provide. That is what "inappropriate" means here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a chat forum or a personal blog. There are many free blog providers who would be happy to accomodate your remarks (see Category:Blog hosting services), but Wikipedia is not the place for them. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re BLOG HOSTING. Sometimes I'm a little slow, but the purpose of bringing up irrelevant subjects like blogs, blocks, soap, personal views etc etc has meanwhile become clear even to me. But this is not going to fly. I will not let anyone provoke me into saying something rash or discourteous. No amount of ridiculous accusations and toilet graffiti on my talk page can make me lose my temper. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re TEMPER. A visual commentary is not an accusation or offence. If it would be, a dictionary would call it accusation or offence. But there is no entry in a dictionary that calls it thus. Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to loose his temper. 128.138.64.153 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

As even after your recent block you have shown no inclination to use Wikipedia as anything other than a chat room (or rather, echo chamber) for your opinions on various articles, you are indefinitely blocked for disrupting our purpose to build an encyclopedia. Post {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page to appeal this block. Sandstein 21:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

DEUTSCHER HUMOR (German humor). --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Swiss humour. Anyway, this talk page is also not a chat room. I'm protecting it. Sandstein 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)