User talk:Lulujannings

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!

Here's some advice about vandalism warnings. You need to leave them. Administrators will usually only block after you have warned them from t1-t4. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! How do I report a vandal who has been continuing through various IP addresses? It's pretty easy to see it's the same guy, as he keeps making the same kind of vandalism to the same pages again and again, and I suspect him to be a registered user who already received warnings over this very issue.

His intent seems to be to defame one John Linton Roberson, and I really have no idea why, but I'm getting tired of patrolling it.

Thanks again! lulujannings 01:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to John Linton Roberson

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in John Linton Roberson. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. (This message is being sent to both parties, as both parties are in danger of violation.) Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heyso I disagree with this person about whether or not JL Roberson is a notable South Carolinan or Blogger/ Insteead of engaging that debate, s/he just calls em a vandal. That is not cool.

I have no debate to engage in with an anonymous someone, who never signs their posts, whose history clearly shows repeated vandalism of this and other pages, which has been reported to the administrators as mentioned above. I am simply maintaining the page in the shape it had been edited into by others before this vandalism began, according to its history, and don't wish to reopen debates settled long before I came in. I'm not sure what's going on with this but it doesn't smell good, and I dislike vandals. The vandal seems to wish to mock the subject of the page and so I repeat my suggestion to take it elsewhere, probably Uncyclopedia. lulujannings

I understand that both of you feel strongly about your respective positions. That said, this is not vandalism - this is a content dispute that has spiraled into an edit war. The purpose of the 3RR rule is to calm down all parties and to stop senseless edit wars such as this one. Both of you need to stop for 24 hours and settle down.

This is your last warning, both of you - with the next edit, I will report this to AN3 (I don't have IRC available where I'm staying). Come back tomorrow night and discuss it calmly. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not here to fight and simply want to protect pages I see vandalized. I hope that's clear. I will take your suggestion. lulujannings

Update: He still continues, so I'm not sure why I can't be allowed to continue maintenance. He wants to remove categories others put in there and that are easily verifiable by citations in the article itself. I don't see that he's proven they should be removed.

lulujannings

Help and suggestions

Hi - thanks for the message, and it's no problem. (I just wish I could have seen Colbert last night - the place where I'm staying doesn't have Comedy Central. What a mess. But I digress - sorry. ;-)

I've got the page on my watchlist now, and I'll watch it tonight and through part of the morning to ensure it's not edited again by either of you. One of you can report the other for violation, and since you've both been warned you can report the other editor if he edits again before Wednesday night at this time. It's a complicated template to fill out, so be prepared to give lots of detail. You can find the reporting process and template here.

I used to make the same mistake you're making, thinking that content changes with which I disagree are vandalism. It's not the same thing, even though I know it seems to you that it is. (The other editor probably feels the same way.) A good explanation is on the Countervandalism Unit page. CVU deals with the repetitious profanity and stupid comments that kids and others seem to love inserting into our hard work. That's not what this is. Your dispute is a disagreement over what should and should not be included in an article. Truth be told, I'm a deletionist and I can certainly see both sides of this argument. 'Notable' means different things to different people.

The best and most-recommended solution to this kind of argument is to discuss it calmly on the talk page. If folks can compromise on the entries on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you guys can compromise on who does or doesn't belong in category x and y. If we all agreed, we wouldn't need the talk pages and this would be a much blander Wiki-experience. Discussion is good, and necessary for the health of the encyclopedia. Don't be afraid of it, and in the same vein, don't be afraid of compromise.

The next-best solution for an edit war is time. Let the article stay as it is for a while, even for a couple of weeks or more. (In the big picture, Roberson can stay off (or on) the list of notable South Carolinians for a couple of weeks. It won't kill him. Or you.) Keep the page on your watchlist, but don't do anything to it even if the other editor does. Eventually you will outlast an anonymous IP editor and you'll be able to edit your content back in. Those who don't bother to register usually move on to other things, and even those who do register find other places to edit.

If the first two solutions fail and it keeps getting messy, you can file a request for comment or even a request for mediation, and I'll let you read about the dispute mediation process yourself. I don't think you're quite there yet, though I'm sure it seems to you that you are - but if you're still having trouble like this at the end of this week and keep getting drawn in to edit wars, go ahead and start the dispute process by making a request for comment.

Sometimes it takes a neutral party to intervene and help work things out, and that was my motivation for stepping in tonight. It's a waste of energy, stress, and time to just keep reverting each other all night long and you guys needed a break - so I provided one. I don't have an agenda other than helping you guys (I'm a girl too, but I say 'you guys' to everyone) step back for a deep breath.

Whatever you do, don't get blocked for violating the 3RR rule. It's not the kiss of death for credibility, but it's pretty close. Remember, you can report him/her and/or he can report you, so it's a two-edged sword. At least now you're both aware and can hopefully settle the conflict with cooler heads later.

I most likely won't be here Wednesday night myself, but I'll check back on you Thursday sometime. Stay cool and take some deep breaths. It's important and justifiable to stand one's ground, but I'm an RN, and in the big picture a Wikipedia article isn't life and death. Sometimes I have to remind myself of that too. Hang in there, and have a good night. Let me know if you need a sounding board or help or have questions. :-) - Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 04:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As you've probably noticed, though, this person seems increasingly like a troll, and is scaring me a little the way he gets so steamed. I have returned a citation because it was my contribution. I explain on the discussion page that for the anonymous user to actually remove citations verifying the facts in the articleseems to be at odds with his other claims. He tries to undermine any "notability" when it's proven. I would also point out, too, that if Notability is different to different people, that would argue more in favor of leaving a category than deleting it, at least in this case.

I really appreciate your taking time to answer my message, and thanks. I hope this ends up peacefully, partly because I wanted instead to come up with an article and got sidetracked on this!Lulu Jannings 05:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another user's thoughts

I find it hard to believe "lulu jannings" is anyone other than Roberson, who after all created this page under the guise of "gilesgoat" and then lied about it to Wikipedia admins (see the votes for deletion link). In an entry with such notability issues as this one, for an artist who has yet to produce a SINGLE fan or reader who wasn't himself in disguise, brevity seems the best policy. "lulu lannings" has resisted cutting out the crap, raising suspicions as to "her" good faith. -Brendan (14:24, 2 August 2006)

The user above is the same as the anonymous user; look at his IP address. Also note that I have not touched the page since my last post here yesterday, but the anonymous user continues despite the warning. Please tell me why different rules apply for this vandal.

The last time I was accused of being a guy this much was when I shaved my head. I can't answer for whatever might have happened before I stepped into this cow pie. But I've provided valid arguments as to my actions, while the anonymous user has only belligerence to provide, as well as seeming to have an axe to grind. Looking at the talk page I would surmise that the anonymous user who initially questioned the page, who wrote a large flame(see the history) in his initial vote for deletion, is the same as this one. Looking further, I found that there seems to be some feud between the subject and the people who are attacking the entry, and provided citations of that. This is vandalism, which has been going on for almost a week now, and ad hominem attacks are not an answer or an argument. Ther main argument seems to be that the anonymous user doesn't want him there. And I still wonder why this user can't register, but prefers to post anonymously. Most likely because the user knows he can get banned then, whereas as an anonymous user he can keep going forever. This has the effect that an anonymous vandal has more influence here than someone signing their work. That's a little weird. Also, though the last poster(who is, according to their IP address, the same person) put a name on the post, please note that they still aren't a registered user, making them still impossible to ban anyway, calling into question how "serious" they are. I also would like the admins to tell himn to cut out the loony ad hominem attacks; I am only addressing the issue itself and the facts. Lulu Jannings 00:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you are totally wrong about the IP, take a deep breath and look again. Which BTW is in itself an ad hominem attack. Get your facts straight. You are the anonymous one, "Lulu." Let's stick to what's substantive and verifiable. You've been flying off the handle all week and show little understanding of the Wikipedia rules. -Brendan (20:35, 2 August 2006)

Proposed deletion of Molly Kiely

The article Molly Kiely has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:GNG doesn't seem to be met, no reliable secondary sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Karlpoppery (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources and contested the PROD. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]