User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Somewhat amusing.[edit]

Wouldn't you think that, if your account were blocked and you were upset about it, you'd say "Why was my account just blocked?" :-) (No, don't worry; I'm not talking about you!) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... I reckon this is something about the User:Waya sahoni block that was unfortunately lifted by a different admin than the one who placed it? Certainly, if my account were blocked, I would not "ask": They whore people through the site and rip them off, then when they are done with you, they cast you away. What do you expect? Wales is a porn dealer, that's where his money comes from.
But I guess since I haven't ever violated WP:LEGAL, WP:NPA, WP:SOCK, or massive copyvio, I would be puzzled by a block indeed.
Sure, but would you refer to the block as being of "this account" or "my account"? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I honestly don't know what observation you're making here. Did I use the phrases "this account" or "my account" somewhere in the wrong way? It's quite possible I made a "thinko" in some note... my brain is getting too old to control my fingers properly :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for being so coy. I assumed you would have seen Waya's comments on his talk page since the block. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I was once blocked by an admin with a bit of a grudge against me for a rather borderline 3RR claim; that annoyed me, it's true. And it lasted for 24 hours, which is longer than Waya sahoni was blocked, unfortunately. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The block was recently reinstated for 1 week, with the possibility of being indefinite. --BWD (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh good. I hadn't seen that. (I actually strayed from my computer for a few hours... bad editor! :-)). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Jeff Merkey's proposed autobiography[edit]

An editor has proposed Talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Jeff Merkey's proposed autobiography for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no knowledge about the question discussed on the RfC. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jerry Jones[edit]

Every now and then an editor comes along intent on designating Jewish criminals, and on promoting Stormfront. User:Jerry Jones seems to be such an editor. I was also watching the activities of User:JJstroker who, as you mentioned, has now stopped editing. On my list of things "to do" is review all of "Stroker"'s contributions. I saw some go by that were inappropriate. "Jones" is a bit reminiscent of user:Vulturell, who also liked to categorize Jews. I don't know that any of these three are the same person, but they do seem to have similar agendas. Thanks for noticing the behavior - let's both keep our eyes open for careless edits. -Will Beback 19:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there seem to be two rather distinct types of "label the Jews" editors. One type is the Jewish-identity folks who think that calling someone Jewish is just the most swell thing you can possibly say about them. Actually, I think it's more along the lines of identitarian editors thinking "I'm Jewish and I feel better about myself if I label all these famous (and generally 'good') people as being Jewish". A lot of that goes on in "List of Jewish X" places, more than on the biographies themselves. In fact, I participated in WP:LISTS in good measure because of the poor evidentiary standards used to include names on the Jewish lists (e.g. the claim is not even close to meeting WP:V by article standards, so the Jewish-identity editors think it's easier to smuggle them onto lists than to get a change accepted on the biography itself. There was a gaggle of now-blocked sockpuppets who were doing this a while back (User:RachelBrown, User:Poetlister, etc); Vulturell is/was on the side of these overly inclusive Jewish lists, but I have no reason to think s/he is actually in the sockpuppet army (just of similar thinking).
The second type of editors is the neo-Nazis who think that calling someone Jewish is a blood libel, and readers must be made aware of the insidious influence of all these Jewish politicians, academics, etc. I have a strong hunch that those folks have their own "lists of jews" that circulate in those white supremacist circles, and that they try to apply to Wikipedia. These editors mostly insert the word "Jewish" (usually Wikilinked, I suppose because we wouldn't know what it meant) in the first few words of the lead. The folks described as Jewish by these editors are almost always left-leaning, some even communists and the like, but are not necessarily Jewish. For example, JJstroker was trying to do this to Gus Hall. There's probably something slightly disturbing about the fact that the neo-Nazis seem to be more accurate just as a raw percentage than do the Jewish-identitarians.
The neo-Nazis put the adjective "Jewish" where it is utterly irrelevant to the article. I mostly just see the stuff going on at all because of a couple articles I watch. One is Judith Butler, who is a philosopher I like (and have met a couple times, FWIW; that's my doctoral area). I think Butler is actually not Jewish at all; but maybe she is, I don't really either know or care. Certainly she doesn't write anything with a Jewish focus, nor make any kind of public point of such a thing (supposing it is true at all). Or maybe it's one of those things that the Jewish-identitarians like too that one of her great-grandparents was Jewish or something. Certainly, there's nothing in the article text that mentions the matter, nor should there be. So the lead generally reads something like:
  • Judith Butler is a prominent post-structuralist philosopher...
Then the labellers come along and change it to something like:
  • Judith Butler is a Jewish post-structuralist philosopher...
Sometimes it's alarmingly hard to tell which type a given editor is when they do this stuff. But I think the fact Jerry Jones added a few affectionate modifications to descriptions of the KKK, Stormfront, and friends is a pretty good clue. And a bunch of them also seem to have a weird obsession with Christianizing Thomas Jefferson (which is what makes me think of sockpuppetry). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Lulu, it has now been accepted that RachelBrown, Poetlister etc. were not sock puppets and they have all been unblocked. I do agree with most of the rest of the above though. I added you to Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. Arniep 21:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That's too bad about her/their unblocking. But at least she hasn't created any new flamewars anywhere I currently edit. It looks like that really awful Zordrac remains blocked at least. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Rachel has been unblocked but no longer edits so you're safe. Arniep 18:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you comment?[edit]

I would value your opinion on this RfC: Talk:Prem_Rawat#RFC_summary. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 15:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 22:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tribunal[edit]

Would you be able to write up some wording to add to WP:NOT? See Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_tribunal ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 22:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good project. But give me until tomorrow to work on it. It's certainly a false sentiment I see expressed a lot (i.e. calls for "justice"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Your sharp plume will be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Zizek page[edit]

The article links have been deleted and reduced to two links to pages which each link to many Zizek articles. This is because Wikipedia is not a link farm. If the articles are in the public domain then I suggest you start a Zizek page at Wikisource, then add a Wikisource template link near the bottom of the Wikipedia article. Thanks. Ramanpotential 08:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

I feel that accusing me of sock puppetry definitely amounts to a personal attack ("Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom") and request that you cease and apologise, now. You can consider this post the first recommended step under WP:DR, if you do not reply positively within 24 hours I will take it further. Thankyou. Ramanpotential 23:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

NB also please remove my "quote" from your user page. Ramanpotential 00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Ramanpotential, that mediation would probably be a good idea. Your rapid escalation to personal attacks over what is, in the end, a minor editing disagreement, was enormously unpleasant to have to deal with; and more importantly, it is disruptive of editing. I guess you have something against Slavoj Zizek, which seems odd, but which I really don't care about one way or the other. Good articles can perfectly well be edited by editors who are not fond of the subject matter. I have some respect for Zizek as a thinker/writer, but certainly not uncritical; and I don't think the current article (with or without the "Critique" seciton) is particularly great... but I do hate to see the article made worse by off-kilter POV-mongering.
Certainly I fully believe in utter sincerity that you have edited using the mentioned IP address, and more recently from the account User:ShowsOn (the latter name presumably intended as a provocation). The quick backpedalling from claiming to have no connection to an IP address is to claiming it's not you but a close friend of yours is about a 99% certainty indicator of sockpuppetry; that extra 1% is probably covered by the almost identical tone and wording in the comments made from the accounts. The thing is, the use of multiple accounts is not even against any policy or guideline in itself, except when it's used to rig a vote (which it was not)... the only actual problem is your persistent personal attacks.
I looked, a bit impressionistically, through some of your edit history, and at a glance it seems perfectly fine to me. Actually, there's nothing really bad in your edits to the Zizek article, only on its talk page (and a few other talk pages). I just don't really get your need to resort to personal attacks at the first whiff of disagreement on content/focus. Maybe a mediator could help sort it out. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I never claimed to have "no connection" with the IP address, just that it wasn't me. Anything else is your interpretation... and a genuinely postmodern interpretation it is indeed. In hindsight full disclosure early on would have been good but the lack thereof had no malicious motives. The username "ShowsOn" is nothing more than a contraction of the user's real name, by the way.
What personal attacks? You're yet to point out exactly what they are, just as you're yet to point out what the problems are with the arguments against Zizek. So I obviously touched a raw nerve in mentioning that you have a self-created article of extremely questionable validity, because I believe it impugns your credibility especially when "notability" is an issue at hand. There is a difference between having a sore point brought up and being personally attacked, however.
I am still awaiting your apology, and your removal of my statement from your user page. Ramanpotential 04:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Your personal attacks were pointed out many times on the Zizek talk page. Basically, nearly every single comment you've put there since you started editing that article. I even made it so painfully explicit in some examples as to quote your prior comment, and annotate the fact it was a personal attack. You can pretend you didn't make the comments which you did as much as you like, but WP keeps a history. Actually, if you want another example of a personal attack, please refer to the comment you make immediately above. Obviously, I detail in painful exactness what the problems with the "critique" section are/were... please read Talk:Slavoj Zizek, I do not wish to repeat everything I wrote there.
Obviously, the comments you make on user talk pages are licensed as GFDL, so you have no claim for their removal. I found the Spoonerism sufficiently charming that I think it merits a place in the "fun quotes". I still can't quite fathom why you think I should apologize for asking you not to engage in personal attacks, but I don't reckon that's going to happen. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you did not specifically point out any personal attacks with reference to anything written in WP:NPA. You have of course repeated statements you consider personal attacks, but that is not the same thing. I, however, have a genuine grievance with you about your constant accusations that I have engaged in sock puppetry.
I'm not asking for you to apologise for "asking (me) not to engage in personal attacks", because it's not the most important matter to me. I ask you to apologise for accusing me of sock puppetry thereby besmirching my name on this fine website which I intend to be part of for many years to come. Ramanpotential 04:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

JJstroker and Jerry Jones[edit]

CheckUser confirms they are most likely the same editor. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Input request[edit]

Lulu, I'd appreciate your input at Talk:Palestinian_people#Middle_East_Forum_link. Thanks Arniep 00:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


I renominated Glacier retreat here is the latest nomination...none of the article as it stands would have happened had you not contributed as much as you did. You deserve a lot of credit.--MONGO 11:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I also will get back to you about your request sometime tonight...promise!--MONGO 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Žižek comment[edit]

I see your point about the criticism article meeting WP:V. I hope you can find a way to make it clear to readers of that article that this criticism is not beyond the ordinary level of criticism that someone of his status (whatever status that is) typically receives. KSchutte 19:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a way to phrase that in the article, I would greatly appreciate it. I think, unfortunately, that if I were to try it, Ramanpotential would take it as an occasion for more flamefests and random reversions. He's got some sort of vendetta about me, for reasons I almost entirely fail to understand. I think he believes I'm some sort of "moral proxy" for Zizek, whom he dislikes for some reason (probably because a local professor told him to).
I don't think you have to know anything about Zizek specifically to make such contextualization. Basically, Zizek is one of the half-dozen or so most prominent living thinkers in the "continental" philosophy. So maybe you could compare him to Dennett, or Searle, or Peter Singer in analytic circles. However, Zizek, unlike most philosophers, of whatever tradition, writes both a huge number of books, and mostly books that are (at least superficially) accessible to a more general readership (but past a superficial level, difficult to understand for even the most technical readership... he's a good writer, whatever else he may be wrong or right about; almost like Putnam, but in a completely different way).
While any thinker of moderate note, especially of cross-disciplinary or "popular" notoriety, has various critics, Zizek isn't especially "controversial" as such. Of course, there's a certain school of analytic philosophy that assumes that anyone who writes about Lacan, or Marx, or Hegel, must by talking nonsense, but that applies uniformly to a variety of colleagues of Zizek... he's not uniquely nonsensical from such a vantage. The critiques on WP are the work of two or three editors; and of those, one IP address is either another name for Ramanpotential (my working hypothesis) or a "friend and colleague" of Ramanpotential (his statement on the matter). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Extending WP:NPA[edit]

Would you care to comment at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Extension? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 01:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Julia Kristeva[edit]

I know zilch about Kristeva, over and above the content of a few interviews and a lot of pseudish talk passing my head. Nor was I the person who added the 'Fashionable Nonsense' quote to her article. However, since there does seem to be a school of thought that's uncomplimentary of her theories, is it unreasonable for a NPOV article to cite such a view as an alternative position? Perhaps that wasn't the best chosen citation. Just wondered what you think and whether you could suggest more useful alternative? Mazzy 10:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I had noticed that a reference to Fashionable Nonsense was added rather indiscriminately to probably most everone the authors of that vaguely mention... which is to say, anyone who is vaguely post-modern, Lacanian, etc. That's really out of keeping with academic biographies, to my mind.
Putting in a (brief) amount of commentary that criticized Kristeva's thinking specifically would be fine. Hell, I've published minor critique of her (I'm entirely non-notable though, nothing that should be included). But a general "critique by association" is not encyclopedic or NPOV. Read WP:NPOV, it doesn't say to include every possible viewpoint, only significant and notable ones. We already say Kristeva is post-structuralist and Lacanian (or at least influenced by those), it's just vacant belaboring to add "... and therefore people who dislike post-structuralism as a general principle dislike Kristeva".
The analogy here would be including a critique of Michael Green (physicist) that wasn't his disagreements with other cosmologists in physics, but was the perspective of new earth creationist Christians. I mean, yeah, in some tortured sense, the creationists disagree with Green; and they're even notable enough for their own articles. But a physics article should have comments from physicists. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. That sounds like a detailed, reasoned argument to me... :-) Mazzy 12:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I read your book[edit]

And I have to say that it is very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimil (talkcontribs)

Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


You are a a major contributor to Retreat of glaciers since 1850 which is now a Featured article....good work!--MONGO 06:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Placement of section links[edit]

Hi Lulu! I sometimes see people moving section links to the top of the section, like you did recently at Python programming language#Generator expressions and List comprehension#Forms of list comprehension. Is that a Wikipedia policy? My style has been to put a main article link to the top and a further information link to the bottom, which would be logical in the sense that more general information may be needed before reading the section and more specific after. At least in the case of List comprehension, it doesn't read well anymore, to me. --TuukkaH 07:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I really dislike the look of ancillary links at bottom of a section. I've seen it rarely enough, that I'm pretty sure it's contrary to WP:STYLE, somewhere or another. I'll try to dig through the guidelines tomorrow, and see if I can find the specific recommendatin. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you knidly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I will like to clear any wrong ideas you may have about this policy. You seem to be concerned that the policy would stop the specified things to be done for reasons unrelated to censorship such as NPOV, verifiability etc. The policy explicitly states that the only using decency or offensiveness as an editorial reason is prohibited as it is subjective and culturally rlative. Other concerns such as NPOV are perfectly valid reasons. Please consider reviewing your stand in this light. Feel free to contact me for any further clarifications. Thank you. Loom91 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I did review the proposal, and believe my characterization in voting oppose is correct. As worded (and as much as I can imagine any tweak achieving), it invites more trouble than it solves the problems it tries to address. Of course I agree with the general dictum "censorship is bad", but I don't think it can be made into a useful and generalized WP policy. There is simply too much context for each article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

RfAr Monicasdude[edit]

As one of the advocates of the first RfC, you may be interested in having a look at this. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

peer review is here : WP:PR. normally people put up their articles there first before putting it at FAC, but not always. Zzzzz 08:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes you get a good response and sometimes you don't. The glacier article got lots of good feedback, but what I got for Shoshone was meager. IN the case of the latter, the FAC process was when the best changes happened.--MONGO 08:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Main page[edit]

Sort of like Wikipedias front cover...Retreat of glaciers since 1850 will be on the Main page on 4/18/06 [1] don't change that channel.--MONGO 11:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Way cool! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude[edit]


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 00:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Trusted computing[edit]


Im away a bit, may not be concentrating on it. I removed the section since it was basically, 2 different lists *both* purporting to be "what is needed for trusted computing". If you can look at both and be clear what is actually needed for TC, and what the rest of those 2 lists is talking about instead, and dump it on the talk page or something? Might be best. keep in touch :) FT2 (Talk) 02:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to sort through it. I agree there was some redundancy, and the flow wasn't great. But the version of the list you deleted was better annotated than the one you kept, and contained several extra concepts. It's in the edit history though, so I'll try to work up a merged version. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Horowitz and Churchill[edit]

Yeman, that recording shows what is really at the end of de fork... how bad does that DH sound?? what a contrast between the two. -- max rspct leave a message 19:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't listened to the debate... and don't reckon I will. I don't think I could bear to force myself to listen to Horowitz for however long the recording is. I actually heard about the upcoming debate (from my mother) a little while back... I was a bit disappointed that Churchill would stoop to granting Horowitz more credence than he deserves by agreeing to the forum. Your comment seems to suggest my initial impression was right. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you should.. It's joyful (horrifically so) to listen to.. Horowitz degenerates exorcist-stylee quite early on. -- max rspct leave a message 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How's your french? Tell me this is a joke: [2] - check his contribs -- max rspct leave a message 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My French is poor. But I think it's just someone else named Horowitz (but probably with a first name that isn't David), who has some interest in communist topics. Don't let DH besmirch the otherwise perfectly respectable family name :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • V *
Since when is "Charlie" the same as "Karl" though?! Of course I am a great admirer of Freddie Demuth, but the change of first name makes it too indirect. (My SO was treasurer of the Freddie Demuth Fan Club back at Kent State :-)). "Charlie M." makes me think of maybe Mingus, or Manson (still in the "M"s, FWIW). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You bright star! :| , I looked up Freddie Demuth club on web and got Devo. I'm sure KM used charles in Londres.. or at least Carl:


-- max rspct leave a message 11:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Žižek hullabaloo[edit]

Hello Lulu, just a note to say keep up the good work. I happened across your debate with Ramanpotential on the Žižek page and found it pretty strange. The Holbo article in particular was an amusing attempt to come up with something notable. Continental theory pages on wikipedia seem pretty susceptible to this sort of thing, unfortunately...the analytic stranglehold can be depressing at times. That's it. Deleuze 13:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm experiencing a milder example of the same damn thing right now on the Judith Butler page too. It is so frustrutating that utterly non-notable criticism is recruited in an alleged concern for "present all sides". I'm starting to think there really ought to be some clarification to the policy/guidelines that explains there isn't an "all sides" to an academic biography, at least not in a general case. That is: just because you write "Bio subject argues X, Y and Z" to explain their thought; that does not mean we have to present arguments for not-X, not-Y, and not-Z in the same article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Trusted computing[edit]

There is no reason given for removing the merge and POV-tag in Trusted computing. Please give a reason. 1() 09:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The merge tag—well, actually both tags—have been there quite a long time without any support or discussion. If consensus cannot be reached for a merge, the tag is removed; it's not a permanent feature of an article. The POV is a slightly different issue, but the fact there has not been any discussion relating to it for weeks or months also indicates the tag no longer belongs there (at least for now). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Lulu, as you say yourself the POV has not been removed. POV does not have a half-life and magically remove itself, so I suggest you replace the page and help us all work towards a more neutral article. StephenFalken 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The POV tag isn't something meant as a permanent box for an article. It's not like a navigation template or project tag. The POV tag should only be used for some specific and addressable issue, and it should be left in place only while discussion of the issue is currently ongoing (and it must be discussion of the same issue, not "someone has some issue or another to discuss"). If you think an article is permanently and fatally POV, that's an appropriate situation for an AfD nomination, not for a POV tag.
I've seen the POV tag used in far too many places where it was really intended as a sort of critical meta-commentary on the topic of the article, rather than as an actual aid in the editing process. And the Trusted computing article has definitely reached that point: the tag has been there (it seems like) forever, without anyone engaging in ongoing discussion about how to fix some identiable concern. I agree the topic is generally controversial... and new editors who are either vehemently anti-TC or strongly pro-TC come along all the time, each unhappy about the middle ground the article tows. But that general situation is true of many articles that are controversial in some way. Like many articles, the TC article sways a bit to each side as new editors come along, but it tends to come back to the middle after a while.
I guess what it amounts to, excuse my French, is: "Put up or shut up!" That is, if you have a specific concern, raise it on the talk page. And by specific, I don't mean that the article seems vaguely (pro/anti-)TC to you; rather, some identifiable claims in particular paragraphs. Moreover, try to suggest how to fix the problem. Only after that's been tried does the POV tag start to become appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User marxist/Category:Marxist Wikipedians[edit]

Lulu, on most category pages the userbox and detail about how to subscribe to it appears. It seems to me to be entirely appropriate. Could you tell me why you don't like it so? Mgekelly - Talk 09:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I had not seen similar explanation of "how to use userboxes" on any other category pages. Most, certainly, do not have such a thing. However, I looked around after your note, and saw some others that do have the similar instructions (and that have for at least several months, rather than just added yesterday). FWIW, I actually still don't really like that, since instructions and a category feel like they should be in separate namespaces (or on the talk page, like I did). But I'm certainly not going to change it elsewhere, nor is it something worth trying to engage in some administrative discussion about, so I reverted to your version of the page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
ta! Mgekelly - Talk 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Same scoop[edit]

I have to agree about User:Cyde. I am determined to at least save Harvard referencing. I actually used the cite.php on the few citations in Glacier National Park (US) just to see how it looks. I am going to compare that with Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and with Shoshone National Forest which uses ref|note style. I simply do not like the editing window filled up with the reference in the article work. cite.php simply will not replace Harvard and I am not sure it should replace ref|note...I kind of like ref|note...I am used ot it and it works fine. I recognize as Cyde stated that if someone removes a reference from the body of the paper it may mess up the numerical order in the end, but that is easily fixed. He has not demostrated to me that the style that he claims is the wave of the future is the way to go.

I'll be real busy today but will look things over this evening. I really don't want an Rfc, but I was leveled by the in your face, take it or file an Rfc attitude of Cyde when I (even politely at first) discussed the matter with him. Maybe I'm just getting old.--MONGO 09:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence[edit]

Hello Lulu. May I invite you (if you're still interested, that is), to go take a look at the Race and Intelligence page and look at some of the latest developments? I believe your input there could help. Thanks, --Ramdrake 13:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I took it off my watchlist because it was simply too painful to watch the hereditarian and racialist POV creep it constantly underwent. I found that if I spent a whole lot of work, I could keep it more-or-less neutral, but it meant a whole lot of effort on the talk page and in watching every edit.
What in particular do you want me to look at? Or what has changed most notably? I'm sure if I read it again, there will be parts that are POV. But I'm not sure I have the will for a new round of cleanup. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant. The article is pretty close to a revert war over some rather strong but indirect evidence that geographic distribution of a number of studied genetic markers does not follow racial boundaries, and certainly not in any way that would support the racial "categorization" (let's face it - that's what it is) advanced in the article. This would strongly suggest that the definition of races as we understand them is genetically not supported, which pre-empts the whole debate before it starts. There's an anon user with some very good data he's been trying to answer but got reverted I don't know how many times, myself (Ramdrake) and Ultramarine trying to leave those results in; and Rikhurzen, Nectarflowed and Arbor, obviously taking turns reverting the stuff. However, if you don't feel up to it, that's fine too. I've been watching from the sidelines for a time now, and I understand how difficult it is to get a point across to these people. Take care and talk to you in some other article. :) --Ramdrake 21:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi, you recently participated in discussion on Referencing on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. You commented on having a controversy about retreat of glaciers since 1850, where the article was converted to a system against consensus of the editors on that page. I have recently begun to have a similar problem on J. K. Rowling. Since the discussion that was generated on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes does not seem to have alleviated the problem, I am preparing an RfC to attempt to generate further discussion from the community. I would like to ask if you would help me by preparing a summary of the controversy surrounding the glacier article. I am making the same request to User:MONGO. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree with you that an RfC is necessary. Cyde and a few other editors have become much too self-impressed with the semi-bot they created, too blinded the disadvantages that counterbalance the advantages of m:Cite.php, and too willing to blithely apply the conversion whether article editors wish it to happen or not. In a lot of cases, articles with very mediocre pre-existing citation standards can only benefit from attention. But in other cases, existing editors have spent considerable work, and reached consensus judgement, to create and enforce a particular citation standard.
Where would you like to do this summary. I think probably starting a user conduct RfC is the best approach, naming the various frequent users of refconverter in the RfC. We should approach this carefully; I certainly don't ascribe to Cyde and the rest the sort of malice that some vandals and POV mongers show in many RfC issues. It's more along the lines of a well-meaning obliviousness to respect for other editors. If you create an RfC page, I'll chime in with my own statement on the issue and/or endorse your statement. I still hope that this issue can be resolved with just a bit of peer pressure, and need not turn into the sort of flamefest some edit conflicts do. Nonetheless, these semi-automated conversions are in many cases genuinely harming Wikipedia. At the very least, Clyde ought to remove his "change a random article" function... it's one thing to let editors do something specific more easily (i.e. change an article they are involved in, and have reached consensus around), it's quite a worse t hing to perform "drive by 'improvements'" that might directly fly against consensus. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've written the RfC, but I've moved it to my userspace here because A. I'm not ready to submit it yet B. I'm about to go out of town for a week and don't want to file an RfC while I'm going to be inactive and C. I'm still talking with Cyde, and at the end of the discussion we will either have achieved 1. compromise or 2. "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". However, if you want to provide a summary of the issues on Retreat of glaciers since 1850, that would be appreciated. However again, it's in my userspace becuase I don't want it going to full RfC yet, so just keep that in mind. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Please do not threaten other users as you have here, as it is considered incivil. --InShaneee 21:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Threaten other users?! I just asked Clyde to stop stomping on consensus and "format mongering". Where is a threat there? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You threatened to take him to an RfA or Arbcom. Also, accusing him of such things as you said above are considered incivil. --InShaneee 22:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, he could have chosed better wording, but I would agree that there is not an established consensus for Cyde's actions, but there is enough reason for Cyde to re-consider his approach. There is a possibility of this going to RfC, but I'm trying to avoid that, and I personally would rather this not end up at the ArbCom, but if the issues continue to be issues, that may end up occuring. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ref converter[edit]

Excuse me? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw your username on the list of frequent users of refconverter, so thought you might have an interest in the issue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the use of the old refs on the J.K. Rowling article, but I don't think that there needs to be consensus on an article to make the change before doing so. As I explained to Evilphoenix the first time I applied the changes, it's easy to revert them if he doesn't them. WP:BB. Also, you seem to be going around claiming the use of the refs converter somehow goes against policy: this is not the case, and you should stop tagging pages with NPOV and stick to discussing the matter in a calm matter. If Evilphoenix does decide to post an RfC I will be glad to comment. jacoplane 03:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Being bold does not authorize editors to disregard consensus. While editors do not own articles, it is proper to give a certain deference to editors who have an established history of editing a page; if your first edit to an article is a major change to content or organization, you are almost certainly ignoring WP:FAITH. Obviously, your first edit to any article you haven't edited will be something. But as a start, it is good to fix a spelling error or add a minor additional fact. And certainly it is good to read through an existing talk page before making a major edit, to see whether prior consensus and discussion exists on that issue. Reference styles are not special in this regard, just this particular example.
Obviously, a certain degree of judgement is needed. If a given article is short, and has less than a half-dozen references to start with, converting to m:Cite.php is not a big deal. Doing that is not really a major edit at all. However, if an article is long, has dozens of references, and the reference style has been discussed already on the talk page, making a change without discussion is deeply obnoxious. And again, reference style is not a special issue here... rearranging all the sections, and rewriting half the paragraphs for a similar long and refined article would also require discussion first.
Let me just give you a contrary example to think about here. After I refine my Citation Tool, it will assist editors in converting m:Cite.php citations (as distinct from footnotes) to Harvard referencing, which I believe is desirable in many cases (and cannot currently be obtained with m:Cite.php). In point of fact, I prominently warn users to seek consensus first; and moreover, even after I improve the tool, it will require some user guidance to decide on things like names of citation sources (which varies between scientific fields, for example, so is definitely not entirely automatable). However, suppose I was able to automate this thing futher than that... would it be OK for me to click on "Harvardize a random article" udner the justification that it would be "easy to revert"? What about to do so multiple times after it was, in fact, reverted? The answer is obviously "No"... but that's exactly what is being done by Cyde and others using refconverter... using the false claim that everything other than m:Cite.php is "deprecated". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll see if you look at the J.K. Rowling history that I did defer to the judgement of Evilphoenix. I even reverted a subsequent use of the ref converter on that article. Regarding your comment that making major changes to an article on the first edit somehow breaks WP:FAITH, I totally disagree. Editors should always be encouraged to contribute, and there should be no initiation period of working on article before you are allowed to make major changes. jacoplane 03:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I just read your comment calling for Cyde to be blocked. I think that's rather ridiculous. Cyde is a great admin who has written a great tool, and your accusation that he is somehow inducing people to break policy is totally unfounded. Everyone who uses the tool does so by their own volition. jacoplane 03:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave, per your comment on my talk page, after spending hours manually making these conversions on articles where I've been involved, I have to tell ya, Cyde's new tool is a welcome relief. I don't really see any problem with "drive by 'improvements'" as you call them, since that's what we're here for, to improve Wikipedia. In fact, so far in my use of his tool, it has uncovered several articles where there are dead references that don't refer to anything any more. This is precisely the problem with the old way of referencing. I've been involved in several articles that have high volume edits, paragraphs added, deleted, moved, and the old way tended to get references out of sync. This tool has helped much with cleanup. You're the first editor I've come across who prefers the old way.

Well... I put scare quotes on "improvements" inasmuch as they are sometimes not improvements. Notice though that m:Cite.php can also create dead references (in a slightly different way). If you look at my Citation Tool, and the examples I mention on its page, you can see some examples of dead references in m:Cite.php (these found "in the wild" not invented by me). I found such dead references in both of the first two articles I examined using my tool.
I do not, FWIW, "prefer the old way". I have myself converted a number of long articles to m:Cite.php. It has some advantages and some disadvantages, and they depend on both the structure and subject area of the article in question. I'm happy to expound more on where I see the tradeoffs. For the most part, I think replacing ref_label is usually a "win"... it's only in replacing ref_harvard that things often get notably worse. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You probably realize by now that J. K. Rowling is alphabetically at the top of the list of articles not yet converted, which is why it unfortunately keeps getting hit by new users trying out the ref converter (including me). Now that I know that Evilphoenix and you have disagreement on that particular article about this, I've been careful to check the history and Talk pages of subsequent article conversions to ascertain whether there is any issue before proceeding. So far I've only had regular editors thank me for the improvement. I disagree with you that one should only "Use this tool only after consensus for a change has been reached on the talk page of the article to which it is applied." Editors don't typically ask for permission before improving or updating articles to meet standards. Meanwhile, if the regular editors of any article disagree with the change, it's a simple revert, and I have no intention of returning to revert war with anyone.

I only knew about J.K.Rowling (the article; I knew of the person, of course) because Evilphoenix mentioned it. But I was a major editor on Retreat of glaciers since 1850, which is what put me onto the problem with misuse of refconverter in the first case. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the proposed RFC against Cyde, well you can do as you wish, but my suggestion is that you turn it around to a more positive tone. I don't think people will agree with you that Cyde has conducted himself poorly, if that's what you intend to conclude. He deserves a raise for his contribution, not censure. A discussion on suggestions for how to best use the ref converter would be much more productive, imho. Some of your ideas there I agree with (and I've already been implementing anyway). --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

An RfC isn't really about "punishment"... if nothing else, it has no capability to mete out any. An RfA can, in principle, make a block or restriction. But an RfC can sometimes help achieve consensus and agreement about future behavior. Not often enough... most of those complained against in an RfC essentially just declare "Fuck you all" at the end of the process, which doesn't do much.
If Cyde were to do no more than just not delete my simple sentence warning users to use caution when making semi-automated major edits, that would probably resolve the whole thing. Unfortunately, he seems to have converted the effort he spent on writing Perl code into belligerence at the very suggestion that there might be an occassion where it shouldn't be used. I have great respect for the authors of 'rm'... but I still know there are times when running 'rm -rf' isn't an entirely good idea. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well you did more than a create a simple sentence warning users to use caution [3]. The tool already tells users to look carefully at the changes being made. You changed his user page (without consensus?) to require consensus on any change made my editors with this tool, then slapped a POV tag on his user page tool. I think you're going about this wrong and only being disruptive. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've received your message regarding the use of Ref converter. I essentially echo the opinion of MPerel and Jacoplane:

  • Converting the references is no big deal. Still, like any other edit, it should not be done against consensus. Converter users should therefore first check the history and discussion.
  • I suggest you simply add a note to that effect to User:Cyde/Ref converter (instead of {{POV}} tags). That would resolve the entire issue, as far as I'm aware, and spare everyone the bother of a RfC. Besides, Cyde even added a blacklist now.
I did add exactly that! And Cyde immediately removed it. FWIW, the blacklist really doesn't go far enough... it only prevents cases where many editors vocally complain of the misuse; I'm quite certain a number of other cases fly "under the radar": the regular editors dislike them, but don't take the effort (or know how) to complain actively at the tool page.
  • That said, nobody WP:OWNs articles here (surprisingly, a concept with which even admins appear to disagree at times) and editors should be WP:BOLD in editing. Accordingly, I'm going to continue to use the converter without asking anyone's permission if no opposition is apparent from the talk page and history. If any editor disagrees, they can just revert me. I won't press the issue.
  • I think it's also instructive that the conversion drive appears to meet with little opposition apart from you and Evilphoenix. Of all my numerous conversions, only some two or three provoked reverts. Even changes in high-profile pages (some with lots of notes) such as Pope John Paul II, Muhammad or Pedophilia have gone unopposed so far.

I'd like to encourage you and Cyde to find an amicable solution to the issue. I believe just cautioning users to look at talk and history first would be an acceptable compromise. Sandstein 04:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to find an amicable solution when Cyde constantly writes, in essence, "Fuck off!" everytime I try to find a compromise (not those exact words, but still quite belligerent and personal attack). I think maybe he'd be more prone to accept a moderate and reasonble caveat about tool usage that was added by someone else at this point. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've now added a cautionary message to the program's page that might be acceptable to all involved. Sandstein 05:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just recieved your spam message. Interestingly enough, I'd come to a similar conclusion earlier today and decided to stop using it as I was, i.e., converting all pages to cite.php. I've been thanked for using it and haven't had any negative responses, but the discussion at WP:FN convinced me that it wasn't appropriate to continue making the changes until some consensus had been made. Before, I hadn't realized that there was opposition to the new system.

"Spam" sounds so harsh :-). I just put a note on the pages of those editors who had discussed refconverter. However, I have a wonderful opportunity for you to recieve $17M from escrow in an African country, and enlarge your penis at the same time...
Sorry mate, didn't mean it quite that way. But I could always use $17M (penis already dwarfs some European countries, thanks for asking)... :) Blackcap (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that an RfC about footnotes is, at the current situation, silly. I've seen Evilphoenix's comments at J. K. Rowling. There's a perfectly lovely coversation going on at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#I don.27t like cite.php. Why start an RfC when we have that? It's not as if it's going to be some sort of cure-all.

On J. K. Rowling: Stop converting the article, lads, and talk it over. All of you. Repeatedly reverting, either to a new or an old version, is EDIT WARRING. Edit warring doesn't help anything. Talking does. I don't care what version it's on now (because whatever it is it's never good enough), but stop reverting.

On footnotes in general: I think that we ought to have standard referencing system. With some luck this debate will result in that, and I have high hopes that modifications to cite.php, many of which are being currently proposed at m:Talk:Cite/Cite.php, will provide a universal system that can accomodate everyone's desires. There are already proposals to have cite.php include a method of Harvard referencing, have the <ref> tags not necessarily be inline, and others. It seems that it's only a matter of time before these ideas are implemented. Blackcap (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not the case that I have any special attachment to curly brackets over angle brackets. If some extension of the <ref> tag could be made to do what needs doing, I would be delighted (I've made pretty specific proposals in that regard even; although what I've suggested doesn't solve all the issues). The problem is that semi-automated conversion to m:Cite.php before this (hypothetical) new & improved system actually exists is lossy. That is, meaningful content is discarded in the process, and can only be restored by later manual work, possibly quite a bit of it. For example, if citation names are provided according to the rules of a specific scientific discipline and Harvard referencing, once that information is thrown away, no automated "updater" can put it back. It happens that I'm actually an expert in this area of text processing: as in, I'm someone whom Cyde might be required to read to get his CS undergrad degree that he's studying for; I don't express these concerns out of ignorance of the technology. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean lossy in the sense that converting, say, Retreat of glaciers since 1850, would lose the advantage gained by Harvard referencing? Blackcap (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
No, something more specific than that. E.g. we have a reference link: {{ref_harv|cascades|Pelto|Pelto}} where we have used specific professional and editorial knowledge to determine that the name of the citation should be "Pelto". But the link also might have been more specific like {{ref_harv|cascades|Pelto 2003a|Pelto 2003a, p.23-27}}. So the desired appearance of the text might be like:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.(Pelto 2003a, p.23-27)
Which would link to the appropriate citation, of course.
The current refconverter simply discards that citation name. So if some future enhancement of m:Cite.php supported full Harvard referencing, future editors would need to manually examine the citation information, and using knowledge of citation standards in that particular scientific field, determine anew what that relevant name was. No tool, no matter how clever, could automatically regenerate the discarded information. A "lossy transformation" has a specific meaning in information theory, and refconverter is lossy. Of course, there are other ways to represent the same sum of information that the template does; at a minimum different combinations of brackets and braces and whatnot could be equivalent, but also more complex compressions and pointers could be involved.
Of course, even if the tool were updated not to be technically lossy, e.g. it produced: <ref name="cascades" cite="Pelto 2003a" link="Pelto 2003a, p.23-27 style="harvard"/> (which clearly has complete information), practical concerns might affect which was easier to maintain and edit (e.g. is the information given on first occurrence or in a later section). But that best case where the concerns are strictly practical is not yet what actually exists; what we have now is worse by quite a bit. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't tag Cyde's pages with notices saying X violates policy. It's being disruptive, at best, and vandalism at worst. If you have a case, I think it'd be a lot better to y'know, air it in public. At least then we'll know whether you or Cyde have the backing of the community, instead of seeing this tempest in a teapot ruffling the feathers of a few hardworking editors. Johnleemk | Talk 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? The NPOV tag, which certainly accurately applies where I put it. It's hard to "air the discussion in public" when every time I make a comment on a talk page, Cyde deletes it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's userspace. Do you honestly expect it to be neutral? And by airing this in public, I mean take it somewhere where uninvolved people can comment. Johnleemk | Talk 17:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
User talk space is not WP:OWN'd either. However, taking your advice, I have made the user conduct RfC active. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Community space is not owned either and we don't stick NPOV tags on them, do we? We don't do it for userspace either. Johnleemk | Talk 17:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

French academic subpage in your userspace?[edit]

Hi Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I wanted to let you know that I recategorized an article on a French academic (per a category rename at WP:CFD) that you have in your sub-userspace. You might want to consider removing the categories or converting them into links for now so that your subpage doesn't appear in the categories. Cheers! --Syrthiss 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Righty-O. I copied the article to my user space to test an automated tool I've written (User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/citation tool). But the categories are not relevant to what I put it there for, so I removed them from the test copy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Huzzah! :) --Syrthiss 03:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyde RfC[edit]

Lulu, I hope you don't mind. I took a few liberties ([4], [5], [6], and [7]) responding on the Cyde RfC, where perhaps I should have let you respond. —Doug Bell talkcontrib 18:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. They all look helpful. Unfortunately (though not really surprisingly), the whole RfC seems to have turned into a referendum on m:Cite.php itself, as I comment on the RfC talk page (or maybe about "Who do you like more, LotLE or Cyde?", which is equally uninteresting). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi I'm a new Wikipedian from Natick, Mass (A Mile 1/2 From Rt 16)... just popped in to say hello to a neighbor:"

Flag of Massachusetts.svg This user is from Massachusetts.

Flag of Massachusetts.svg Flag of the United States.svg 20px Merlinus (talk)

  • Hi I Am Marc:

I was recently married to my lovely wife; We have lived together for several years already...

  • We love cats (3 currently own us)... Jeffy(15), Echo(6) & Gizmo(3). All sleep with us in the big bed and no room to move an inch.
  • I was Disabled in a 1993 (Coma)/ and am very slowly recovering. It's tough going out sometimes, though with friends I still do. I have a few supportive friends.
  • I am an "Unenrolled voter." Democrat/ Republicans, I don't care, whoever serves makes my life better in the long run I vote for!
  • Avid reader. Has collection of many hundreds of rare books. Especially Science Fiction and Fantasy.
  • Avid Music collector (2,500 albums)...mostly bootlegs...mostly rare bootlegs...Stones, Kinks, Clapton, Beatles. and solos!

I am what I am I'm strongly opinionated about disabled peoples' rights and jobs for American citizens who have trouble finding minimum wage jobs in my state today and support Universal health care, I would be dead if I did not have it. I am an idiot about Internet social skills. I hope that the Immigration Reform bill will protect disabled citizens who wish to work like myself first before considering allowing new people to come here. I was searching for an internet forum to be my outlet to express my needs, but found that Wikipedia is not best suited for that. I'm brushing up on Wikipedia's rules of conduct, and slowly starting to begin contributing again.

Current book and CD I own hundreds of rare books

  • Current Book Jack Whyte: "Uther"
  • Current CD Faves:
    • Warren Zevon... "Life'll Kill Ya"
    • Howlin' Wolf: "Greatest Hits"
  • Latest Flick: "Charles II: The Last King"

Flag of Massachusetts.svg Flag of the United States.svg 20px Merlinus (talk)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lulu's conduct in an RFC[edit]

There's a conversation involving you going on at the above link. Snoutwood (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to User:Cyde/Ref converter[edit]

I have reverted your reversion of my edits since WP:OWN only applies to articles not user subpages. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing those user pages in another editor's space, as clearly he does not wish you to. Further edits there would clearly be disruptive. Jonathunder 23:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

your revenge additions[edit]

I have reverted your additions of my name to the Cyde RFA as it is petty revenge for me removing your additions to another user's subpage (which constitute vandalism and disruption btw) as well as being a WP:POINT and WP:AGF violation, please do not re-add them. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to let you know that I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cyde in regards to my reversion of your additions so that there's a centralized discussion place. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


In the past few days, you've

  • disrupted a user on Wikibreak and taken comments out of his mouth ([8])
  • removed extremely pertinent comments from a discussion (Wikipedia:Talk_page#Etiquette, [9])
    • ...and backed it up with wikilawyering ([10])
  • signed another user's name to a statement (Wikipedia:Civility, WP:POINT, [11])
  • spammed a number of users with a polemic message ([12] [13] etc.)
  • done very little in article space during this time

Consider this a formal warning: don't keep it up. (Generally, just stay civil from now on.) Ashibaka tock 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)