User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive04

re: MoS change
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Proposed interim policy for Honorific prefixes. Zocky 07:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Question
In response to your question on the RfC brought against you: You are not going to be punished for this RfC. All it is a way for disputes between users to be resolved. "Summary execution" isn't really possible. Through the RfC, certain users hope to gain a better understanding of your action, and also to make their thoughts known to you. Hope this helps. Regards, Bratsche talk  random 12:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh good, I didn't want the remote operation of the poison-injection syringes on my keyboard to be subject to the RfC vote.
 * Aside from the silly (and annoyed) joke I made about my execution, my point about lack of any actual RfC content remains. It's just a bunch of people griping about a bunch of unrelated things, most of which are not conceivably "resolvable" (even if someone had made an effort prior to Jguk's vindictive RfC).  The gripers are really only complaining about liking styles, and being dissatisfied that I find them POV&mdash;plus a bunch of post hoc and improvised descriptions of allegedly "bad behavior" (which even if true, would be many unrelated issues).
 * I feel like writing: post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:36, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Ratification
I put together what I hope is a neutrally presented view - would appreciate if you copyedit it to make it more neutral where possible. I hope that pointing out the issues will help avoid them in the future. However, I am frustrated with the changed presentation of the vote from the Survey to the Ratification and doubt I have been as neutral as I should be. Can you take a look?

Also, please note that I support the closure on the Requests for comment and will be commenting there as well. Trödel| talk 23:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Trödel, I'm not quite certain which part you wrote, since not all the paragraphs/sections seem to be signed (yeah, I know I could figure it out in the edit history). But in general, I agree the ratification vote isn't going anywhere.  It will fail&mdash;not just a 75% threshhold, but even a simple majority.  People (in both positions) are now voting for incommensurable things: for a policy; for a MoS; for whether the prior survey was consensus; for whether Condorcet is a good voting technique; for whether Whig is a good guy.  Basically the whole page has become meaningless.


 * It looks like your summary of the situation is good. And I also support Zocky's attempt to put the prior stuff behind us "forgive and forget" (I think you wrote).  I think some time is a good idea&mdash;I'll live with a POV article on the pope and the House of Windsor for a while, Wikipedia doesn't have to be perfect this month.  And in truth and retrospect, if I hadn't stumbled in to active editing via the B16 article, I might well have found something else just as wrong in some completely unrelated corner of WP.


 * I do think, unfortunately, that there are a small number of editors who are absolutely steadfast on using styles for a few of their "favorite" people. Not necessarily because they like those people per se, but for various odd reasons.  And more specifically, willing to disregard any policy or style guide that does emerge to further their POV.  Jguk is certainly the worst of these (with a schoolboy immaturity accompanying his self-rightousness about his wrong-headed position).  But Jtdirl is pretty bad too (mysteriously to me: being as he's an Irish leftist with a Ph.D. and apparently pro-gay).  Proteus and John Kenney are pretty fanatical here too.  Ann Hennigan seems to be one of those really fervent Catholics, as such, and a bit blindly so; but not one who resorts to belligerence and cheap manipulation of WP procedures.


 * So I hope things move forward, maybe through the efforts of you or Zocky (or others). But I fear that a few people just won't let go of wanting WP to be the Vatican house organ.  But again, as above, even if WP includes a handful of Vatican press releases where articles should go, that still puts it in a better league than 99% of US journalists and publishers, as far as neutrality goes.  So I guess that's good enough. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:17, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Some thoughts
As I'm sure you're aware, removing personal attacks in generally permitted on Wikipedia. At the same time, this is only a guideline and users are therefore permitted to put them back. That being said, it's considered poor form to use one's user page to attack fellow Wikipedians. Your complaining of Jguk's pettiness rings rather hollow when taken in consideration with your own pettiness on your RfC. Whether you meant to or not, and I would hope that someone of your background and education would not do so by accident, you have given the impression that you find the RfC and, by extension, anyone who endorsed it, ridiculous. You have also given the impression that you think those of us who push styles are pro-Catholic, and you seem mystified that someone like Jtdirl could be in favor of styles. What you fail to understand is that the users here who are in favor of styles come from academic backgrounds and are, for the most part, sincere in their commitment to a Neutral Point of View.


 * Yes, I would say that the RfC itself is ridiculous (and the WP gaming somewhat contemptible). Those who endorsed it may merely be misguided.  I would say that Jguk, Jtdirl, John Kenney and probably Proteus are actively vindictive in doing so; but you, Ann Hennigan, and the others are merely on the wrong track.  Not sure about Bratsche.


 * And yes, there is no question whatsoever in my mind that the style before the pope's name is pro-Catholic. You may not be Catholic, but you are assuming a pro-Catholic position in this matter.  There is no way the style use can reasonably be considered NPOV.  Mention, of course, is perfectly NPOV.  Again, please, please, please read (and understand) Use-mention distinction. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

We understand NPOV as the inclusion of as much information as possible, with prejudice towards that which the community deems notable. Neutrality itself is a point of view, of course, and one that is predicated on community consensus. There can therefore never, by definition, be a case of community consensus and NPOV conflicting, as one springs from the other.

It is the point of view of some that styles, in and of themselves, are POV, because of the sentiments which they apparently espouse. As an atheist, I understand such arguments. Naturally I don't think Pope Benedict XVI is holy, when holy is understood to be an association with a divine power. I do, however, believe that he is styled as such, much as I believe that his given name is Joseph. These are facts and I don't think that they're disputed as such. Given my commitment to inclusion of information, I support using styles. We aren't endorsing the fact that the Catholic Church regards Benedict as holy, we're endorsing the fact that the Catholic Church (and, in fairness, non-Catholic parts of the world) call Benedict XVI "His Holiness."


 * As you very well know, not one single person on WP has opposed reporting the fact that many people address the pope in that manner. Not me, not Whig, not Titanium Dragon; indeed not any of the voters who supported the alternative 3/4 choices in Whig's survey.  I would not even care much at all if the style was given more prominence than I think it really deserves (e.g. right in the first sentence, per alternative 3, rather than 8 paragraphs into the article where it might go in any other encyclopedia).  As long as styles are mentioned rather than used.

Regarding the problem of recognizing some styles and not others, this isn't actually a problem at all. Wikipedia deals with this all the time, in fact. We don't call Henri, Comte de Paris, Duc de France Henri VII of France, for example. Wikipedia, in doing this, is tacitly endorsing the point of view that the Bourbons are not the legitimate rulers of France and that France is currently a republic. This POV reflects how most of the world sees the matter. NPOV does not require equal presentation of all minority viewpoints. In a similar vein, while individuals may style themselves whatever they want, not all styles are equal or equally acknowledged in the world. Once again, this is a question for community consensus. Given the common usage of "his holiness" or "her majesty" or "his honor" or "the right honorable" and so on I expect these would make the cut. Kim Jong-Il's use of Dear Leader is not widely recognized or accepted. Again, this is a matter for community deliberation, after a decision whether or not styles in general should or should not be used.


 * By "common usage" you of course mean "never used in other NPOV writing." Look at the style guides examined in Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing.  There's not a single other source anyone has identified that uses styles.  The only uses outside Wikipedia are in "house organs" of various entities (the Vatican, the Sultanate of Brunai, the House of Windsor, etc), and in quotational reproduction of such uses.  No one, but no one, else other than WP uses them (though some places mention them). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I don't have to be "for" or "against" styles to support their inclusion in Wikipedia. My own opinion shouldn't be important. What matters, from my perspective, is whether styles exist and whether they are notable enough for inclusion. I think (and here's where my opinion does enter in) they succeed on both counts. Just some thoughts, Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC
I do not know if it is just me, but I think there has been RFC's levied against you, Whig and Jtdril, and a RFAr against jguk. Thats four people, all involved in the styles debate. I just think those steps are going a bit too far. Will you wish to join with me and asking for some outside assistance. I know we both have been on opposite sides before, and you might think that what I am doing at the Benedict XVI page might be a waste of time, but I think we can put an end to this once and for all by getting people in, who are not involved, to make a sound decision. I know there will be some that will not abide by it, but we need something that works really quick. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I note on my main user page that I took the RfC's off my watchlist (just a few minutes ago). They are just a waste of time.  I need to either do paid work, or at least contribute to WP articles whose content is worthwhile.  It is too easy to get sucked into the little schoolyard games (that I really should have stopped 25 years ago).


 * I am bored with the style wars too. Yeah, there are a bunch of pages that are POV now, but there are also 560k pages where styles are not an issue at all.  I'm going to live with the style POV stuff, at least for a while, and not spend time worrying about it.  That means, however, that I'm not really interested in getting sucked into much work seeking "outside assistance" or whatever.  I wish you the best with it.


 * Btw. Utterly side note, in the ongoing pettiness, Smoddy has recently taken to editing my user page against my wishes. If you by chance feel like asking him not to, maybe the independent voice would help.  I did put a "request for page protection", but I have no idea how that is processed administratively.  And frankly, I've spent way more time reading procedure pages lately than I want to.


 * P.S. AFAIK, the only RfAr is not related to the style wars. It appears Jguk is similarly stubborn and arrogant about the use of date terms (he doesn't like BCE/CE, only BC/AD).  I had nothing to do with that issue, though it seems to show similar pattern of behavior as with the style stuff.


 * P.P.S. I think Zocky is making a reasonable effort to find an "interim non-policy" about styles. You might take a look at what he's doing, and be supportive. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:40, 2005 May 23 (UTC)


 * I will take a look at it, but I agree with you, the style wars are getting over board now, especially with the RFC's. I would not be surprised if someone tried to launch an RFC on me for my Vote or Die! situation at the Pope article. Plus, I mainly wanted to use something that the people at the Pope article will live with. I have your user page on my watch list and I will revert anything that I see funky going on it. I moved on myself from the styles, recently trying to earn my title of Belarussian Cabal (I pretty much edit and work on Belarussian topics that few choose to work on). Well, if you need anything else, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would point out that users don't own their user page, and that all Wikipedia policies, including no personal attacks, apply to the user space. Gentgeen 20:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Your PA of jguk
I'm not here to administer you lessons of moral or anything, and I concur with you that this whole RfC thing was rather childish. However, you'll have to admit your behavior concerning said RfC was rather provocative at times (a more fitting reaction would have been to ignore it, IMO). So here's what I suggest: remove any mention of jguk or the RfC, as well as the protection template from your page, and we'll leave it at that. These issues have been brought up in the RfC and other admins might not let you get away with it. Cheers. Phils 20:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Your page
Hi, I said I'd protect your page but then missed the further reverts. Sorry. If you want it protected on a particular version, let me know; however it might a good idea, as a gesture of good faith, to remove anything that might be construed as a personal attack (which I think you've done now anyway). I also tidied up David Mertz a little, and took the clean-up tag off. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. I think between your admonishment and a change in wording, Smoddy and friends have stopped modifying my page.  Should I remove the request for page protection? If so, how?
 * And thanks also for cleaning up the David Mertz page. It started out as an autobiography page, before I realized that was a no-no (and it got spuriously VfD'd in the same flame war on styles).  When I learned that I was wrong to create it myself, I stopped editing the page (but I did put the stuff you saw in the Talk part).  However, I succumbed, after your wonderful improvements, to linking my dissertation title to the public domain text of it (and to describing my CV you linked to as such, rather than as a resume).  I hope that's not too terrible to make those edits myself... I do recognize the good reasons why users shouldn't generally edit pages about themselves. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:15, 2005 May 23 (UTC)


 * Hi Lotus, your changes were fine. Actually, I don't think it's true that editors aren't allowed to edit their own pages. The reality is that few people are able to be neutral when it comes to themselves, so it's generally not a good idea to edit a page about yourself, but it's not, so far as I know, forbidden. Don't worry about removing the request for protection: I'll either remove it, or put a note on it saying it's dealt with. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, to clarify (if it matters): the very first version I copied to David Mertz was from another bio (public domain) of me on the internet, not written by me. I wouldn't have felt right creating the text de novo.  But I did improve/change the wording in several ways before anyone else touched the article.  I think a pure vanity page isn't such a good idea, but I am mentioned by several other WP articles, so it seemed relevant to have. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:26, 2005 May 23 (UTC)


 * Keep BrokenSegue 23:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep what? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Smoddy
Hello, Lulu. Firstly, I have created a new RFC against you, one which actually does have some issues in it. See Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2. In addition, the reason that I stopped editing your page was because you stopped having disallowed content on there, and because I didn't want to break the 3RR that you broke. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Have fun with it. After the last nonsense by Jguk, I've decided not to get drawn into these schoolyard games.  I will not respond to another abuse of the RfC process.  There is no issue there, nothing to resolve, and no attempt was made at resolution.  Find something better to do. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:23, 2005 May 24 (UTC)


 * Several users agree with my sentiments. Do you disagree?  I would be interested to know why. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Lulu, it would appear, from Mel's talk page, that you misunderstand why I am upset. I would like it noted that I have never taken part in a style war.  I have removed personal attacks and misleading statements, as well as deleted sockpuppet votes, well within the realms of policy.  I don't believe I have "gamed" any procedures.  If I have, let me know, and I'll rectify.  The reason I press this issue is not to emphasise how adult and important I am (why should I care about some American mathematician's opinion of me?) but because I feel very strongly towards this amazing project, and I feel that your behaviour creates an antagonistic working atmosphere for other editors.  You have certainly annoyed me.  I believe my latest RFC is an attempt to gain community opinion on whether or not you have behaved out of order.  You would help your case (everyone who has looked at the page agrees with me) if you give your reasoning for your behaviour.


 * I'll say one more thing now. I have nothing against you, Lulu. I am solely opposed to your completely over the top comments and behaviour.  I hope you can bring yourself to reconsider. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Whig on Smoddy
I agree that Smoddy has raised some valid issues, but he should have raised them here first, and discussed them with you directly. Since the new RfC has not been certified yet, I won't get too involved except to say that I think you should not make personal attacks, even on your User page, and that it was right for them to be deleted. But some of those endorsing Smoddy's RfC have restored personal attacks against me, so there's a bit of a lack of clean hands problem here. I'd like it if the personal attacks directed at me by Jtdirl and Mackensen were deleted from the Talk:Pope Benedict XVI, but they were restored (including by Proteus) when I removed them myself (and when one was deleted by Samboy as well). Whig 18:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As I say, I'm not going to give the tomfoolery of the RfC a false respect. But calling Jguk "boorish" simply is not a personal attack; it's an almost self-evident statement of fact.  It seems like the people complaining about this trite little thing refuse to read the definition of the word (even now that I put it right on my user page).  Likewise, I'm not going to complain about Smoddy calling me "American" (which I sadly am, by birth), nor a mathematician (which I am not, though I admire people who are).  Heck, I'm not even going to raise an RfC when I'm not addressed by my proper honorific as "Dr. Lulu" :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:08, 2005 May 24 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did mean American programmer. No offence meant.  Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Summarizing my Wikipedia Activity
A user named Jguk wrote a silly RfC about me ☹. I had copied it to this page on a lark, but now I'm tired of looking at it. You're welcome to hop over there to read his summary of my WP activity as it relates to trying to get NPOV enforced relative to styles and honorifics.

Inspired by the above, Lulu's word-of-the-day:

Boorish, Adjective 1. behaving as a boor; rough in manners; rude; uncultured

By the way, I have taken all the RfC nonsense off my watchlist. Have fun with it, anyone who wants to write essays over there. I am bored with it; and I would much rather pay attention to content that matters.