Talk:Zoot

There is no primary usage here because the page is titled "Zoot", not "Zoot (disambiguation)" or "Zoot suit (disambiguation)". For more information, see WP:PRIMARYMEANING and MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This page covers "Zoot" and "Zoot suit" the second of which has a clear primary meaning at Zoot suit. And don't be cheeky about reverting mate, I let this go so let's be friends or I will need to report your clear violation. Abtract (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you're obviously ignoring me as usual. If there's anyone "violating" anything it's you, not me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I split the Zoot Suit dab back off (and enforced the arbitration agreement each way). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Layout

This layout looks terrible! Why was this done? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You need A Cup Of Tea, A Bex and A Good Lie Down. It was done because, to use your words, the current "layout looks terrible!".

Your statement is simply your POV.

I said "Discuss it on the talk page." I see no "discussion" - simply asserting the infallibility of your own opinion is not "discussion". Pdfpdf (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't need anything thank you very much. I'm just trying to do my job here, and that is keeping dab-related pages looking nice and neat (per the guidelines of course). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll get arbitration. Clearly, you refuse to discuss the matter - you simply insist that you are right. With luck you'll listen to someone with authority. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What more is there to say? The dab is fine. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

a) There is plenty to say. b) The dab is not "fine". Why would I go to the effort of changing it if it was "fine"? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of academic interest, what is it that does "look terrible"?
(They look remarkably similar to me.)

Zoot may refer to:

• Zoot (band), an Australian pop group active 1965-1971
• Zoot, a character in the television series The Tribe
• Zoot, a member of the fictional muppet band Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem
• Zoot, a character in the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail
• Zoot, a character from the webcomic Loxie & Zoot

People with the nickname

• Zoot Sims (1925-1985), an American jazz saxophonist

See also

• Zoot Suit (disambiguation)

versus

Zoot may refer to:

• Zoot (band), an Australian pop group active 1965-1971
• Zoot, a character in the television series The Tribe
• Zoot, a member of the fictional muppet band Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem
• Zoot, a character in the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail
• Zoot, a character from the webcomic Loxie & Zoot

People with the nickname

• Zoot Sims (1925-1985), an American jazz saxophonist

See also

• Zoot Suit (disambiguation)

Pdfpdf (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've conveyed myself well. In restrospect, you're the one who didn't explain why your version is any better. Leaving that aside, I'm fine with the current version. Keep in mind that usage of "a", "an", "the", etc., is typically ignored when listing real individuals. WP:MOS:DP#People says it best. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've conveyed myself well.

You seriously believe that, don't you.

In restrospect, you're the one who didn't explain why your version is any better.

And pray tell, please describe to me where you have explained "why your version is any better."? You haven't even bothered to explain how they are different!

"Keep in mind that usage of "a", "an", "the", etc., is typically ignored when listing real individuals." - I don't understand this sentence. Could you please explain what you are referring to here?

Pdfpdf (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, the formatting I have done is the standard (got it from User:JHunterJ, who has been working on dabs longer than I). WP:MOS:DP#People answers your second question. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Really!!!

So, if you have "conveyed myself well", explain your arrogant behaviour and now proven inaccurate statements here:

12:25, 17 November 2008 Sesshomaru (That's because it doesn't exist)

12:09, 17 November 2008 Pdfpdf (Can't find it.)

12:07, 17 November 2008 Pdfpdf ("Entries are sentence fragments; do not end them with periods or other punctuation." - but that's not the sentence I'm looking for; somewhere there's a more specific sentence. Will advise when found.)

11:48, 17 November 2008 Sesshomaru (Undid revision 252267055 by Pdfpdf (talk): Ok what manual of style says to remove "the", "a", "an", etc.? I don't know of any for dabs)

Your edits are unpredictable and inconsistent.

First you complain when I 'remove "the", "a", "an", etc.'.

Then you complain when I put them back in.

Then you take some of them out.

Then you quote MoS saying "Do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role."

Clearly, you have no idea what you are doing and just like trying to make WP:points and having edit wars with people. (Yes, I have read your past interactions with others, including User:JHunterJ!)

Now, I am going to change the page to a consistent format that really does conform with MOSDAB and MOSDP (not with what you think your interpretation of it should be), and if you interrupt or revert, I will treat it as vandalism.

To quote one of your previous conversations: "Back off!"

Pdfpdf (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Oh, my. Are we actually edit warring over the format of links on a disambiguation page?

First, let me congratulate both of you for not violating the Three-Revert Rule, however close you might have come. That's step one.

Step two is to recognize that both of you have valid points, and simply reverting back and forth does no one any good. Seriously, who is benefitting from constant reversions back and forth? Who?

WP:MOSDAB, from my reading, makes no explicit recommendation on the question of how much text should be linked when we link to an item appearing in another article. Certainly, the example shown there (with Tail as the topic) only links a single word per entry -- specifically, the word corresponding to the article being linked. I think that's the best model to follow, as it appears to have widespread and longstanding support.

For example, the entry on the Muppet (please capitalize) links to the article Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem (please don't italicize). Therefore, by my reading, the text linked should be limited to just that article title, and there is no need to include the text "member of the fictional Muppet band" in the link.

The entry on the character from The Tribe is a little more problematic, because the link is to List of The Tribe characters, which is not text found in the entry. While I can't find a specific recommendation in WP:MOSDAB, my suggestion would be to pipe it: ... in the television series [[List of The Tribe characters|''The Tribe'']]

However, whatever format is chosen, it's most important to remain calm and refrain from disparaging other users. If the edit warring continues, this is going to progress beyond a Third Opinion, and no one wants that.

-- Powers ^T 18:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

response

Actually, no, we are not edit warring over the format of links on a disambiguation page.

User:Sesshomaru arrogantly asserts that his edits are perfect, and refuses to discuss them. As can be read above, his "perfect" edits are inconsistent, unpredictable and do not consistently conform with MoS.

Further, you will notice that he has ignored your third opinion and continues to revert any changes to his "perfect" edits that would make the page conform with your suggestions - his edit comments say his reversions are "fix"es to the page.

And quite frankly, I do want some "higher" authority to tell Sesshomaru that his arrogant behaviour is unacceptable, and actually do something to limit such behaviour.

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pdfpdf, I don't know what your problem is with me. I'm just enforcing the rules, that's all. I suggest you stop reverting me for the sake of it. Now hopefully, we can agree on this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sesshomaru:

If you had actually read what people wrote to you and about you, it would be blindingly obvious to you what everybody's "problem"s with you are, not just mine.

So don't come at me with this "I don't know what your problem is with me" rubbish; it has been explained to you many times by many people.

This, and other people's past attempts to communicate with you, are not personal attacks. They are repeated polite attempts by numerous people to explain things to you, and repeated polite questions by numerous people asking you to explain yourself. At no time have I ever seen you provide a relevant answer to a question you have been asked.

"I'm just enforcing the rules" - Rubbish! You have been given opinions by three different and independent people which have told you, repeatedly, that your edits and opinions are contrary to the guidelines. You continue to ignore them.

"that's all." - Rubbish!

"I suggest you stop reverting me for the sake of it." - If you really do think that I, and others, are reverting you "for the sake of it", then you have paid no attention to what people have written to you.

"Now hopefully, we can agree on this." - Sorry, I don't understand. Is that supposed to be some kind of perverse joke? It is beyond my wildest imagination that you could possibly even entertain the thought that after two months of me, and two other people, telling you that your edits are not compliant with the guidelines, that I would suddenly agree with you that they are compliant.

Pdfpdf (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You have reverted 3 times in less than 24 hours.