User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive12

What is vandalism?

Please list only vandalism on Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. USer:Fluterst's actions, if not helpful, do not meet the definition of vandalism. Consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead. - Taxman ^Talk 19:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion on how to pursue this type of issue then, if you feel it is not vandalism? Going through an RfC might take months, and never really get anything done. But many of the changes made by Fluterst fall far below the level of anything that could be reasonably be considered a content dispute (some are bad, but still at the content dispute level; but many are well, you say not "vandalism", but I'm not sure what else to call them). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

One little indian

Thanks for your note. We have similar problems on Anarchism with 'anarcho-capitalists'/revisionists.. Seem to be folk paid to fill these articles (ala COINTELPRO ) - i.e they seem to be on 8 hrs a day non-stop. I don't have my head completely around the history of allegations against Ward Churchill.. but the Rocky Mountain News campaign should not be given undue prominence in the article... That "newspaper" should not be relied upon for unbias coverage , especially since they target panelists looking at the research misconduct allegations>[1] - max rspct leave a message 15:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see you been at University of Colorado ...I wondered whether you had actually met W.Churchill? - max rspct leave a message 16:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have, very passingly. I've never had a one-on-one conversation with him though. This was way before he had his university appointment, maybe mid 1980s. It would have been fun to take a course from him, but I left CO in 1988, for the slightly fairer shores of Massachusetts (and a Ph.D. program here). My mom used to be fairly good friends with Churchill—not "talk every day friends", more like "ocassionally go out together" friends. In the last decade or so, she's less in touch with Churchill, but still "pleasant greetings at a social event" friends (nothing so dramatic as a falling out or political conflict, just how things happen in life).

Mom also, FWIW, is somewhat known in Indian art circles. She was one of the (numerous) co-authors of the first-in-the-USA "Colorado Indian Arts and Crafts Act". So I may have known about Churchill as an artist before I ever read any of his essays. Both Mom and Dad (and a few other people I'm in touch with) are in Colorado, and are hence exposed to the local anti-Churchill press, which I hear about in filtered form (including sometimes subjecting themselves to some awful right-wing radio DJs; I couldn't bear that for five seconds myself). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetlister

You're not going to believe this, but s/he's apparently been blocked, I believe for sock puppetry. and she's saying she must be unblocked to deal with the mediation with you. I kid you not. See User_talk:Mindspillage#User:Poetlister_block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Zordrac

You're not the only one dealing with Zordrac's lies. He's currently claiming that I requested him to send e-mail to Daniel Brandt, "explaining" that I "used weasel-words" to try and "discredit" Brandt in an "underhanded" way -- yeah, you heard right, he's actually trying to pretend I asked him to represent me to Brandt. He's also telling the lie that I made fifteen reverts (or as he phrases it, "15RR") in a twenty-four hour period. Most days I don't even make fifteen edits in twenty-four hours, let along fifteen reverts, let alone fifteen reverts to the same page. Anyways, if I end up bringing this lying sack-of to RfC or ArbCom, want to come with and help? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said in my comment on his talk page, I've never interacted with Zordrac before. So while I didn't like the comments I saw, I don't think I'd have all that much to add to an RfC. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL Antaeus Feldspar is the one that's been wikistalking me. I did precisely what he asked me to do. As you can see, he somehow happened upon your page so as to badmouth me to you. Anyway, no worries, go and associate with someone like that. I am sure it will help your reputation lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

OK... how about apologizing for (and retracting) the false and derogatory comments you made about me on yet another users page, for no apparent reason?

FWIW, I also have no previous contact with Antaeus Feldspar, so can also make no comment on his edit history. It sounds like a conflict I'd be best to stay out of. But so far, only one of the two of you has gone out of their way to write nasty things about me on pages I have no involvement with. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Political Compass

Wherez your results then? Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.33

I am suprised folk pay so much attention to this simplistic device. It only reinforces that constrictive, disenfranchised and spectacular capitalist culture of ours. And to have a professional philosopher encouraging me to participate in it...It also seems to be an invention (we don't need) from the US of A ??? BTW> one of our 2 trollers intoduced one of these on his debut day.. right in the middle of anarchism article. Amateurs, thats why notes to editors are on the front page. And how far is 'assume good faith' supposed to last? Who writes all these rules anyway?- max rspct leave a message 15:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mine are the second or third result, I think. I abbreviated my name as "LotLE" just for space reasons there, as sometimes elsewhere (but it links back to my regular user page).

I guess I'm obviously not so down on little OCD self-tests as you are :-). I sort of enjoy little quizzes; and the two dimensions seem moderately better than just one. Can I add your numbers to the table? Definitely not a USA test though... they spell all their words wrong *wink* (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/faq.php#spell). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, please don't add the results.. Call me a killjoy but I wouldn't want to support or give it credence - max rspct leave a message

Are There Any Lesbians in the film Henry and June?

Did u get bored or something? Very interesting tho I would like you see a quote from Bill Hicks.. I've put it at the top of my scrappage.. heh heh -max rspct leave a message 16:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Humor and light-heartedness

They're not against policy yet, but I'm seriously considering drafting something. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, I've been sort of worried on your behalf since first interacting with you on Wikipedia. It would be a shame if you ever gained weight, or y'know... had sex, because then they'd kick you off for a deceptive username :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The weight gain I can see, but the sex thing will never happen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Please wait on the de-population

Lulu: Please refrain from de-populating "Category:Controversial books" . Someone had something to say and they went about it in the wrong way. Yes, we should rip the category out, but only after the info is preserved. I have alreayd started List of controversial books to do that. Then we can rip the category out. -- Fplay 23:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I was the original nominator on the CfD (and the speedy when someone recreated it). I did not know something was going on behind the scenes... I thought it was just on the back burner of some administrative to-do list. But I'll defer to you in working out whatever is going on with it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned out the "Controversial books" catagory with a software tool. A few books have crept back in, but it certainly is not a multi-person job anymore. I created Category:Lists of controversial books since there does seem to be a need: people who are looking for an argument are need of assistance. I feel that the the problem is that the Category technology sticks a label right on the book (well, our description of the book) and is intrusive. That is why I CfD'ed "Category:Banned books" as well. My feelings are that if the author or publisher did not put the swastika or star of David or Newbury Award symbol on the cover of the book, then we should not either. We should catalog only by subject. AFAIAC, lists can do almost whatever they want, and they are a lot easier to maintain. Who suggested to that searching for the word controversy was an adequat alternative should think harder about what Wikipedia is supposed to be (hint: it is supposed to be both different and in some ways, better than Google). -- Fplay 23:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Situation

Hi Lulu, I got a note from Zordrac expressing some regret about the situation. I've advised him to let it go, to stay away from pages you're editing, and to send you some season's greetings. I also suggested he should consider deleting some of the criticism he has posted. The whole thing started because of a misunderstanding and has turned into a tempest in a teapot. It would be good if it could just go away. A very happy New Year to you, Lulu. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you... and a Happy Festivus to you. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive12! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 15:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Aren't you forgetting something?

• Category:Controversial albums
• Category:Controversial birds
• Category:Controversial books
• Category:Controversial computer and video games
• Category:Controversial entertainment media
• Category:Controversial films
• Category:Controversial television shows

Fair is fair. -- Fplay 03:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have already put "films" in CfD (there are over 200 of them) and assume that the discussion will apply to all such categories. -- Fplay 03:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between (previously) blissful ignorance and forgetting :-). Oh well, more CfD's for my to-do list. Of course, if you decide to actually do the work before I get around to it... Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Controversial books

Aren't "don't recreate" notices usually only used when somebody's trying to recreate the page with the same content? -- SCZenz 04:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Since a category is created indirectly by tagging the various articles so categorized, the "same content" thing isn't really relevant. But this category was already repopulated once after it CfD result and page deletion, so I think reminding readers of that fact is a good thing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think it's necessary, I suppose, sure. Thanks. -- SCZenz 05:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see you're an admin. What would you think of actually deleting the page, as it should be. It went through CfD, and was voted 9/1/0 for deletion, and some admin actually did delete the category page. Unfortunately, not too long after, someone else recreated the page. I put a speedy delete notice indicating the prior CfD, and no one, AFAICT disagreed. But the category page has lingered endlessly. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I look again it should've been after deleted after being depopulated, but there was confusion. I've deleted it now. If it ever gets recreated, you can let me know. -- SCZenz 05:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

Hey man, what Flurest did isn't Vandalism, it is going a tad over the line with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and maybe WP:NOT/Soapbox, but calling it vandalism doesn't help anything because it appears that he thinks he's helping the encyclopedia, which is the key between vandalism and other things. I'll go have a talk to him, but in the meantime, please don't call his edits vandalism from now on, alright? We'll get this settled. karmafist 20:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

But it's always a revert to a diatribe that several people have warned him about, and erasing the contributions of a number of editors since his older "favored version". Just because it doesn't read "penis penis penis" doesn't mean it's not vandalism (i.e. the diatribe is topical in the sense of being about the article subject, but it's by no means good faith)... there's no way any sane person could think this is "helping the encyclopedia", and I don't for a moment believe that Fluterst believes such. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I.e.: Attention-seeking vandalism: Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc.

I have sometimes wondered whether issues might be clarified by the introduction of the term "POVandalism", defined as "edits that can only be believed to be in good faith if the editor in question knew nothing about WP:NPOV." On the plus side, this would clarify some situations where a definitely POV-pushing editor says "I was trying in good faith to help the encyclopedia!" and we could reply "removing every single fact from the article that supports a POV other than your own is not in line with NPOV, and since we know you've read WP:NPOV (as evidenced by you accusing other editors of violating it) it's not an edit in good faith." On the minus side, the same editors who falsely accuse anyone making edits that supports a POV other than theirs of "vandalism" would adopt this term and misuse it just as flagrantly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Arniep

Oh yeah, about that thing. Yeah, I don't particularly care either either way when it comes to the Jewish lists, I only concurred with you that Stab Rule was a disruptive inflence to Wikipedia, so I figured i'd stay on the sidelines since I wasn't involved in any of the Jewish lists. Also, the "Foos" thing doesn't really help anything. What does that mean, by the way? Is that like Foosball, or something? karmafist 20:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh... I guess I've been in techie communities too much. In discussion of programming-related stuff, people use the place-holder words foo, bar, baz, bat to indicate some general word or concept without specifying a particular concrete word. Sort of like 'x', 'y', 'z' in algebra. The choice of words derives from FUBAR, which is in turn, I believe, WWII military slang. I'll try to find other formulations since it seems like non-hackers might be confused by the usage. I believe the band Foo Fighters owe their name to the same source.

There's definitely nothing pejorative in the way these placeholder words are used, if that was your concern. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to help

Before I do, just wanted to let you know that we are not so diametrically opposed politically as you might fear... I support abortion rights, support equal rights, support gun legislation (strict), support free speech (meaning: I think Ward Churchill has a big mouth, but NOBODY should be trying to shut him up), oppose the death penalty and I support gay marriage. I'll take a looksie at it and you're right...I do my very best to maintain WP:NPOV. Thanks for thinking my imput mattered.--MONGO 04:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm very pleased by all those things you support. I think you know I agree on all those points... actually, you might be surprised that of them, I most ambivalent about gun control. I have a distaste for guns myself, and ultimately support rather stringent legislation. But I can see the personal liberty aspect, and am tempted to dislike government regulation of what borders on civil liberties. But in the end, I do not to like gun violence, and think it merits regulation, as with, for example, regulation of toxins as a safety issue, or OSHA rules for workplaces.

Don't worry though, I won't ask for your help in trying to maintain Ward Churchill :-). We get some really extreme partisans there, which mostly consists not of opinions that I might disagree with, but with outright swearing and diatribe. In contrast, User:Jossi at List of dictators is coming in, I am confident, with good intentions and a slight excess of enthusiasm. I don't mind asking for you outside voice on that, but would find it cruel to subject you to the contention of Churchill's page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that you see that as enthusiasm. I am certatinly not interested in edit wars (being there, done that), but I must admit that I think that many lists in WP are at fault, as many of them are used as a veiled way to assert a certain POV. Can you imagine the POV nightmare if someone starts List of demagogs, for example? Well, for me it is the same as List of dictators. We must use WP:V and WP:CITE if we want to remain in NPOV territory, otherwise we end up in a mess. I have been recently working in shaping the guideline Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and in exploring that subject I have become a bit sensitive about verifiability and attribution of reputable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. In fact, I was one of the strongest "delete" voters on Category:Totalitarian dictators. And I would vote "delete" on the demagogs. Minus "totalitarian", and with annotations, however, I think this one is encyclopedic. But the opinion you express was rejected on AfD, despite very strong sentiment from a non-consensus number of editors. Since then, IMO, the list has become much more rigorous. Yeah, of course it's not perfect, but no article is... let alone one on a politically loaded (but valid) concept.

Y'know, there's a tendency to generically say "consensus doesn't trump NPOV"... and it's true as far as it goes. But a declaration by one editor that something is POV doesn't make it so if consensus is that a topic has achieved NPOV. A lot of people have added "NPOV" tags to this article out of a rampant WP:POINT agenda... that's not the right approach. Please discuss first, and respect other editors who have worked on this. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I have removed the NPOV tag, but kept the originalresearch warning. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Has the definition of Dictator been discussed...I mean, are we using Wikipedia definition or some concensus from numerous sources. Rather dumb question as I am sure that was hashed out (hopefully) in the Dictator article. What I am getting at is if we know the parameters that they must have been (as quoted from Dictator article): absolutist or autocratic ruler who governs outside the rule of law...if we use that as the standard, then that helps us to narrow it down and keeps out some that are commonly percieved by the west to fit the criteria of dictator.--MONGO 04:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It has. We based it on the WP article, but several editors, mostly Jiang and Jucifer, helped factor it into the bullet points, which seem easier to evaluate for a given figure. But we also, after some discussion and a number of criteria wording revisions, broke it into the two "required" aspects (subverted rule-of-law and absolute ruler), with several "frequent", but not required, aspects. There is considerable discussion of the formulation of the criteria, and this refinement generally occurred before most names were added. Changing the format to use date and annotations columns is mostly my contribution; I think that really helps to make it better than a lot of the "lists of X" that simply include names or terms without any motivation for individual items. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That will solve the problem ... tightening the criteria for inclusion in a manner that it is easily verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Lulu: Don't you think that all that formulation of criteria is original research? To avoid that pitfall, the best way to proceed is to use a widley accepted criteria of what a dictator is. And if there isn't, the article may not be feasible without a permanent npov and originalresearch tags. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Some synthesis is certainly required by Wikipedia editors, but this isn't the same thing as original research. Any political, or generally contentious, topic requires a bit of abstraction and summary to write original text. But if you read through the talk page and discussion, you'll see that we utilized definitions from about a half dozen different dictionaries, and took the consensus definition in Dictator as a touchstone (that article, of course, might have itself changed slightly in the meanwhile). In formulating and stating criteria, we are making an effort to represent the understanding of most outside experts in political theory, but at the same time reduce it to a small enough statement that editors can evaluate a specific figure for membership.

Most certainly, if you think the criteria can be improved, please discuss it. But please do not jump in with your own brand new criteria that contradict the prior work of other editors. Propose a change on the talk page first, and get some input about it. Believe it or not, some thought really did go into this. Moreover, it's not pushing one political POV. I am myself pretty much "ultra-left" commie. I believe Jucifer states on his/her talk page that s/he is a libertarian/objectivist (the second part makes me wince, actually). And I think Jiang is a bit of an anti-Communist type, though I'm not sure. But the point is that this was worked out among editors on a broad political range, it's not there to push some specific political viewpoint. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

One additional note: Finding criteria that are simply the easiest to verify or least ambiguous is not really sufficient for this purpose. You hinted at something like "called a dictator by someone"... well, that is indeed pretty directly verifiable with a link to a news source. But that's not the list we are creating... just choosing something easy isn't always better than choosing something harder, but more informative. You're right, this list is never going to be as unambiguous and formal as, say, list of baseball players with certain playing statistics. There is going to be judgement and intelligence involved in adding or removing names... and many names are going to need extensive discussion and carefully worded annotations. But we don't do it because it's easy, we do it because it's hard :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Which is probably why I was solicited (kinda conservative)...Jossi seems to feel that everyone of these folks on that article need to be cited as being dictators in the mainstream of world politics. I think that is going to be a monumental task. I dealt with a similar situation in some of the articles related to 9/11 and though my perception of the actions of the hijackers was "terrorism" it was made clear by some in opposition that that sort of thing needed to be a mainstream definition to show that the majority of the world would agree that they were terrorists...we had a long diatribe about terrorism, the UN definition of it, and other encyclopedic sources were consulted...is this situation similar? If I am correct, Jossi feels that ALL of those listed may or may not be "Dictators" depending on POV and therefore need to be linked externally to enough evidence to support such a claim. So we are dealing with less of a content dispute and more of a question on WP:V?--MONGO 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  I see your point. But the issues remain: if there is no recognizable, easy to formulate definition of what a dictator is, this article will be a very tough cookie and for in for long and protracted edit war. But I believe that (a) there must be a widely accepted definition, and (b) each and every entry in the article must be verifiable against that definition. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I kind of asked the same Q over in the article talk page so not to continue to take up more of Lulu's space, I'll resume this over there.--MONGO 05:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite

I appreciate the invitation to help with Ward Churchill. Sometimes it gets tiring to be marginalized and your views be universially distained, huh? It begs the question: How many Americans, born in the Soviet Union, would be good soviet citizens? Ever society has a minute group of dissenters, which every society treats the same way: with political prosecution. America persecuted communists and socialists, and the Soviet Union persecuted Western thinkers. What is so absurd is the Right has borrowed (stole) the concept of victimhood from the Left.Travb 07:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you a communist?

Are you a communist? I noticed the medal on your page. I lived in Ukraine for 2 and a half years. My wife is Ukrainian. I miss that country dearly. The people are so incredible. My heart aches for Odessa, the pearl of the black sea. I knew some closet communists here in America. Salt Lake City has a communist economics program. I am not a communist, instead I am somewhere in between. Quasi-Socialist?

I met a person who was in a mental hosptital for political beliefs in Ukraine, released during Glasnost, because of Amnesty International. For this and other historical reasons, I could never be a communist myself.

I e-mailed this File:Soviet medal mother.jpg medal to my mom for her birthday, a little Soviet triva for you. Travb 07:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well... I'm not a member of the CPUSA, but then it essentially reorganized itself into the Committees of Correspondence back in the mid-1990s (and I'm not a member of that either :-)). But I did largely Marxist theory in my philosophy Ph.D. I confess, however, that I have some sympathies in a more anarcho-syndicalist direction. I also know all the Marxist economists in the UMass-Amherst program (Rick Wolff was on my dissertation committee); I forget who is at UU, but I remember some of the Rethinking Marxism regulars were from there. Oh... and I voted Hall/Davis in 1984, but I didn't really think they would win. (wink) And I've been inside 235 W. 23rd Street.

I'm sure your heroic mother appreciated her medal. :-)

My one year of Russian in college left me remembering Cyrillic, and about two actual words... I checked "geroinya" in a dictionary. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Test time!

You'll get these correct, but what the heck: User:MONGO/Test for Dementia--MONGO 11:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude RfC 2

A second RFC has been filed for User:Monicasdude's questionable user conduct. Please join in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2.

Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

While I cannot say I am surprised to read this, I did not participate in either the disputes on these pages nor any efforts to resolve them. So I am afraid I have no new information to share with this RfC. I certainly wish you the best outcome possible. Take heart in that though it was way too painful and difficult, Monicasdude is now pretty well behaved on Bob Dylan, more-or-less as a result of the RfC process. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, Ward Churchill, Foo, etc.

Yeah, no worries about the Foo thing, I thought you were making a Mister T impression. (I pity the Jewish Foo!) See? I told ya MONGO was a nice guy, both me and him have changed alot since last year. I've also just seen that at Ward Churchill that you've broken WP:3RR, making me realize that I can't really consider myself neutral there anymore since I won't block you for it, as I probably should, as with Pokey5945, who's also broken WP:3RR. Please, stay away from that article awhile, or if you think you're going to make multiple reverts in a short period of time, ask some people for outside assistance on figuring out a consensus edit(WP:30 can help), talk to people about it on talk pages, ask for assistance at WP:AN or WP:RFPP, or even ask on WP:AN for a sock check if you think those who disagree with you are making multiple accounts. You still might get blocked for it, but the more you revert there, the more likely it is that you will, i'm heading over to WP:RFPP now in regards to the article in the hopes of resolving the edit war. karmafist 11:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... the general gist of your advice is good. But where do you believe I violated 3RR?! Yesterday, there was some back-and-forth about addding a sentence or two to the lead between Pokey5945 and I, but I'm quite confident that I never restored the identical version 4 times or more. In fact, I think I never did the identical version twice. This isn't a matter of trying to avoid 3RR in some technical sense, but of working out language that is mutually acceptable (which often just means a word or two difference).

FWIW, although I think Pokey5945 has too much of an anti-Churchill agenda that comes out in the talk page, his edits to the page itself are constructive (just sometimes slightly over the top). I make it a rule to never directly revert Pokey5945, though I will often reword what he adds quite a bit, and he'll move back to something closer to his first version (but still not an exact reversion, generally). I'm sure both of us do a bit of eye-rolling and hair-pulling during the process, but after three or four iterations of slightly different language, we reach something NPOV and acceptable to both of us.

I looked some more through the edit history of Ward Churchill. The Dec 28 changes definitely don't come close to 3RR by anyone. The edit history comments on both sides might be a little snippy, but there are not any exact reversions. Looking farther back, I see on Dec 17 that I reverted Fluterst (which I still consider outright vandalism) 3 times, but not 4 times. Before that was before Fluterst's initial crusade of diatribe, so I only did direct reverts a couple times on anonymous editors (and usually even more obvious vandalism than Fluterst's... though like Fluterst, minimally "topical" in the sense that they insult the article topic rather than completely unrelated words).

You're definitely right on MONGO. He's been very helpful, and I'm really glad I asked for his help in smoothing over potential conflict at List of dictators. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Lulu I want to apologize

Lulu, I know I have made a few ad hominem attacks on you, and I really regret them and want to apologize. material deleted at user request --Antispammer 17:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I appreciate the gesture greatly. I do not hold a similarly negative opinion of Jossi though. As I discuss in several places, I do think s/he came in a bit too gang-busters to the List of dictators page, but with overall good faith, and the initial excesses have toned down greatly with a few words from uninvolved parties. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am rather surprised by your comments [presumably Antispammer's]. I would appreciate an explanation of your reasons of such a vitriolic assessment of my participation in Wikipedia. Most surprising is that I do not recall ever engaging you in any discussions or collabirating on any article. Not to bother Lulu, I invite you to respond at User_talk:Jossi, if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Social construction

Hey, happy whatnot! Anyhoo, if you've got any extra time, or feel like blowing off work on another article for a couple minutes, and of course if you're interested, I've started rewriting social construction to make it an article that's actually about, you know, social constructions and not just a different take on social constructionism (I got a great idea while I was reviewing it - hey! Ohmigod! Examples!), and I'm sure it could use some copyediting and no doubt contributions by someone with a mind for that sort of thing. -Seth Mahoney 20:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I just put it on my watchlist (Social constructionism was, but not that one). I'll try to give it a once (or twice, or thrice) over as soon as I get a chance. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights is a proposed policy / guideline that has been supported by Wikipedians who are concerned that the long term neutrality of Wikipedia depends upon input from minority viewpoints. Continued input from minority viewpoints, in turn can be assured only if the actions of admins and ArbCom are applied fairly and with an even hand. Although the proposed policy / guideline is under active discussion [2], [3], there have been attempts to close the discussion on the grounds that "there is not a snowball's chance in hell" [4] that such a proposed policy / guideline will be accepted. One editor was sanctioned [5] for an allegedly "disruptive" edit, of removing a "rejected" template while discussion was ongoing [6]. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. (The current version of the proposal appearing on the page is a semi-blanked version which was semi-blanked by opponents of the proposal.)[7] --BostonMA 14:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I had seen this in a longer version (presumably before semi-blanking). While I think disrupting the discussion or changing the proposal in non-constructive ways is childish, I also did not see much that I thought was worthwhile in the earlier framework either. It looked like even more layers of formalism on top of all the WP policies, procedures and rules that already exist. For example, while it sounds nice for editors not to be subject to ex post facto rules, there are already many contradictions in the existing rules, and I doubt anyone has read them all anyway. More common sense, and less proceduralism is better, IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comrade!

Always nice to see other marxists doing an effort to keep the dream alive! I just joined the philosophy project I also see you are a part of. Can you tell me how it works? Are the work based on certain efforts or is the list just to see who are interested and can share knowledge on philosophical matters? Happy New Year by the way! Axezz 09:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, any WP project is simply a voluntary collection of priorities. I have the philosophy project infobox on my user page, but I must confess that I haven't particularly chosen articles it indicates as priorities to work on. Nothing wrong with those, but my interest in editing a given article tends to be much flittier than that. Of course, if I were to get more involved with the project itself, I could help select what the priorities are, but I haven't done that. Still, maybe you'd enjoy participating more closely in the project discussion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"

Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

The reason I reverted was because the linked page was incorrect in its assumption, due to the fact that an anon/vandal running around removed the relevant information a few days ago. Furthermore, we do not have to go along with what one particular page says is the truth. Did you look in the Cuba or Fidel Castro articles? Or did you just pick the article that fit your own agenda? CJK 18:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If I changed the Fidel Castro article to say that Castro is a reptile, would that count as proof on another page as well? CJK 19:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia

I just started this proposed guideline. Go, check it out and be bold. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking for someone to clean up a mess

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway has been moved and replaced, deleted and replaced. Both times with an abortively constructed new RfC. A brave and quasi-neutral admin is needed to put the long-dead RfC back, possibly protect it, and if your feeling generous make a link to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3 at the top to guide a newbie in the right direction if they feel they _must_ take this course. Feel up to the task? - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... whether or not I might be up to it otherwise, I'm not an admin. I might manage a helpful note or two, but I can't do stuff like protect pages. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 11:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What? You're kidding! That's just wrong. I'd offer to nominate you, but that would be the kiss of death... - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I opposed MONGO's RfAr because he had made a number of unprofessional comments in August (since then, I've had an excellent relationship with him, and he's been very helpful with another dispute, so hats off to him). In my opposition, I stated that I felt that six months of exemplary behavior was a good standard for adminship. I made a few overly caustic comments in the August time frame (not so much as those I criticized MONGO for, but not up to my personal standards of best behavior). I've had other admins suggest my nomination, but under my own standards, I will not accept one until February (I think I will then though; although I'm not certain I need the extra capabilities to tempt misuse). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you were already an admin. Whenever you need a nominator, please count me in. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Box

No worries Lulu. I know when it gets heated things like that happen. I appreciate your apology. Cheers Szvest 12:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

hey

I left a message here I am not sure if I am correct, though.--Antispammer 21:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok I had them backwards. Is it okay if I delete my comment and your reply on that page?--Antispammer 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer you not delete your comment, but definitely do not remove mine. There's no great sin in making an error among editors, but talk histories should be preserved for later editors. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mistake to Can you elaborate on that? That should be fine. Thanks.--Antispammer 22:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We need to talk

Ok, I have recently found out about a big, festering, problem and I need to talk to you. Outside of wikipedia, preferably IRC or instant messenger. This is important.--Antispammer 08:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... OK. Email me at the address listed on my user page. I don't really do IM stuff, but I check email every three seconds :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will email you right after I email a few other people that I need to talk to. It's actually not that important concerning you, but it is important to me, and sorry for being vague but I will clear this all up tomorrow hopefully when I email you.--Antispammer 08:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am going to save you the trouble of the letter, I actually forgot my password. I have deleted my 2 vitriolic and disgusting statements(on list of dictators and on this page) concerning jossi. Please do us both a favor and leave it deleted, and when I am done you can delete this we need to talk please. Thanks, I hope you can understand this.--Antispammer 21:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral Redirect

Our "friend" Voice of All has unilaterally put a redirect on List of sexual slurs to make it redirect to Sexual slang. This was done without any discussion or consensus. He then removed the edit option from the page to undo his vandalism. Can you do anything about this admin/vandal? 155.84.57.253 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If this redirect was without discussion, that certainly seems inappropriate. I have no idea what you mean about "removed the edit option" though; it's perfectly straightforward to rollback the redirect. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Any explanation?

Do you have any satisfactory explanation for the behavior of list editors? It is uncanny that lists on subjects as varied as cults (List of cults, dictators List of dictators, sexual orientation List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and perceptions of divinity List_of_people_considered_to_be_deities all carry very similar peoblems and similar excuses for non compliance. I am thinking of sending a message to Jimbo for his input. I think that the state of some of these lists is appalling as it pertains to lack compliance with content principles. What do you think? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I kinda-sorta understand the identitarian ones, and the "people like me" attachment. And I've tried to explain it on the proposed guideline, and more recently over at the GLB list. The others are not as obvious to me what motivates editors to disregard a need for evidence. But then, I haven't edited those, so have not read the specific comments that page editors make.

It's frustrating, but not uniquely frustrating. For example, I briefly tried to improve the Fidel Castro page a couple months back. When it comes to highly politicized topics like that, trust me that people get very thick headed. So I guess I'm going with: "human nature" here... yep, that's my final answer. :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's that it allows people to make edits with no research. You've got a book at home listing "Great British racing-car drivers," or you once heard someone mention that A is an X, so you slam the names into one of the Wikipedia lists. This is why they react so badly when they're asked for citations, because the whole point of that kind of editing is it's meant to be easy. This isn't true of everyone who writes these lists, because I know some do care about accuracy, but I bet it's true of a lot of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I wish WP:NOT and WP:V where actually enforced. We need a vote specifically to deal with list so as to clearify and reinforce existing policies. Trolls have way to much power here...this is why so many good user leaves this site.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

List of sexual slurs?

Actually, Splash and I noticed the high number of socks on the last AfD. But the old AfD is not even the main issue here.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a response to my comment about that list. I don't know about socks in the old AfD vote, but presumably it's a bit late to contest an an August AfD. What is the "main issue" you are concerned with. FWIW, I am not opposed to redirecting the page—I have no opinion about the matter at all—but if it is to be done, there should be some discussion on the talk page. Perhaps some type of merge might actually be closer to what you have in mind? I agree that, like most lists, this one needs better sourcing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

But if we are just ridding the list to make a redirect, then we are not deleting the whole article, just the list, the content is in its new home. I could see how this could be made to fit into AfD though, as sometimes that has to happen, and it looks like that is the only way now. Off course, expect hordes of sockpuppets.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That guy

Hello LOTLE. Take a look? [8] JDG 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that edit war. Can you re-upload the image with more specific permission information (source, rights, etc), then link to the new one? Or add more on the fair use at the image page. Just asserting fair use is indeed slightly weak if the source is unclear. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I fleshed it out last night. You should see the new material if you go to the image's page. JKelly, who is one of those roving-copyright-enforcer guys, seems to have accepted it. Thx. JDG 19:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All & Splash are at it again

"Voice of All" is doing the unilateral redirect at List of sexual slurs again. MonkeyHateClean 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support about removing CS Lewis from the list of "Born Again Christians" just because some evangelicals seem to think that "if you read between the lines..." is encyclopaedic. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If you feel like chipping in with a proposed guideline I've been involved in, Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, I've sure your contribution would be valuable. Indirectly, the awful evidentiary status of the List of born-again Christian laypeople was what led me to caring about getting lists up to encyclopedic standards (I sort of fought it alone some months back). I think this proposal might be useful to this goal in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA ect...

I'll have a look at User:Outerlimits and the lists, but I got to go to physics lab and calculus for now.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 13:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, its a little late, but I dropped Outerlimits a note [9]Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the other note Bearcat wrote him got him the message (I guess it's archived on the talk page of GLB list), or at least scared Outerlimits away from further disruption and nastiness at that page. 02:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I, Jossi award you this barnstar of diligence for your tireless work with some of the most contentious lists in WP and your extraordinary scrutiny and precision in applying content policies to them.

Thanks, Jossi. I still haven't ventured over to the cults. I can see the quagmire psychicly without even reading the article. I've gotten drawn back into the evidentiarily horrible born-again Christians, and the bisexuals (who should really be merged into GLB; but what's to do?). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

my writing

How is it more awkward? You say it's more awkward but you don't give examples. By my estimation, the edit that was there before I reworded those sections was the stuff that was awkward-- in fact, some of the sentences were broken, incomplete, etc. If you want to take out some of the wikilinks, go ahead; I don't have a problem with that. But the idea that something like a broken sentence or misplaced period in the second (or is it the third, can't remember) paragraph is better than my rewording is kinda silly. Kiko 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll make an effort to fix it back up. The series of events serving as motivation was pretty good before, and you turned it into a really long run-on with no predicate. There are a few other issues that are less bad. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sometthing else

To someting quite different ... can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Chang? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A "new McCarthyism"

This is refreshing stuff... almost El Cid-like for me. Bytheway, have you heard the Pacifism as Pathology talk at AKpress NYC.. i think (on CD)?? -- max rspct leave a message 22:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't read or listened to that talk. Maybe I should pick it up from my AK catalog. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Another discussion about lists

Hello David, Can you take a look at Talk:Charismatic_authority#Lists_of_people_in_article? Deja-vu? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement. I would remove the whole list thing. Once mention by one source that XYZ fits the Weberian model of charismatic authority is not consensus, but including them on the list on that basis, is is violation of WP:NPOV. The fallacious arguments made by Andries are a beauty. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, like my comment over on that page says, I really cannot see a benefit of a list there. If every one of the same names could be used in some descriptive context... sure, I have no specific beef with any of them. But it's definitely a listomania. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I wrote

I never wrote that the characterization as possessing charismatic authority of all the people listed at charismatic authority already was part of the biography. I wrote that it was already present in Prem Rawat, Sathya Sai Baba and Adolf Hitler. Andries 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Len Oakes book is quite complicated and provides an amazing variety of information and perspectives. I really have to re-read it. Andries 08:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries needs to slow down with his advocacy against gurus andl leaders new religious movements. He finds a certain joy in grouping gurus and leaders of new religious movements with Hitler to the hope to assert the fallacy of guilt by association. This is at the core of the discussion at Charismatic authority, no more, no less. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not exactly the only one who recognizes the similarity from personal exerience. So does Eileen Barker (in an interview) "I remember when I first saw Reverend Sun Myung Moon. I was watching with some other people while he was talking and gesticulating in Korean, and it really reminded me more of Hitler than of anyone else." [10]But do not worry. I have no intention to write that in the article though because it is just an interview, not an article in a scholarly magazine. Andries 16:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes we all know how you feel. But that is not what Wikipedia is for. Read WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please specify where I broke that policy? Andries 17:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to burden David witth this, I will respond to your question on your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)