User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive11

Lacan & Laplanche
No need to worry about the edit summary. Thoughts at Talk:Jacques Lacan. Jkelly 17:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As a note, I'd suggest that you're missing out if Jean Laplanche isn't "on your radar". The Wikipedia article (which I started, what, yesterday?) doesn't do him justice.  Aside from his general work on psychoanalytic theory, and Freud's seduction theory specifically (it is embarassing that is a redlink), his discussions of what he calls "the enigmatic signifier" is very interesting stuff.  Jkelly 18:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I've only glanced at The Language of Psychoanalysis (translated into English; and a number of years back, even so). But let me put it this way: if you were teaching a course on Lacanian theory (or its offshoots), would Laplanche ever make it to your reading list of a half dozen books? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Depends on the context. If it was a course in lit-crit, then no.  If it was a course in Lacanian psychoanalysis, then I probably would throw in a Laplanche article.  Jkelly 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

LGBT criminals
I would appreciate if you could consider changing your vote on this as one vote was probably a sockp, if you change your vote to delete it would go 11-6 so nearly there... Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_18. Cheers Arniep 23:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)



Another one for you....us haters of the trolls
--MONGO 08:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thx. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Alleged relics of Jesus
Hi. You took part in the discussion over the renaming of this category when I nominated it for renaming on 14th September. I think that everyone agreed that it needed to be renamed, although there wasn't any agreement over what to rename it to. I've nominated it again and I'd be grateful if you could consider my new proposal to rename it Relics attributed to Jesus. Thanks! --G Rutter 09:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.jinfo.org/
take a look at the most recent comments: Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_20 unless something is copied verbatim surely its not copy vio? Arniep 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have not looked at any alleged copyvio on the article. A list seems like borderline for copyright protection; though if the descriptions of the individuals listed are all copied (not just the facts), it's possible.  However, it's certainly true that copyvio is a whole different category of concern than AfD is.  Whether the article deserves to exist in a non-infringing way is entirely unrelated to whether the current article infringes; neither decision should be based on the other. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I checked the lists and they don't even seem to be in the same order, it looks like th jinfo list was used just for checking. Arniep 14:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks
I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. I'll see you over at Jean Laplanche. Thanks again. Jkelly 09:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish categories
User:IZAK has taken it upon himself to nom a whole bunch of Jewish categories including my category Jewish classical musicians, please vote here: Categories_for_deletion. Arniep 14:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD
Hi. If you have time please take a look at Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. If you are interested, arguments against generating such a list have been stated and restated over the course of several years at Talk:List of dictators. Thanks. 172 21:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being the only other user who seems to be actively working toward some sort of compromise on List of dictators. Gazpacho 22:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think the refactoring of the list into more rigorously defined subpages is an excellent step. Contrary to 172's thoroughgoing anathema, I think there is some worthwhile content to be had in a properly verified list of this sort.  I started adding a few annotation at List of modern day dictators (I'm pretty sure its AfD will reach "no consensus"; especially if the quality of the list is improved by such annotations). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish jurists
this was deleted but I just counted the votes at Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_18 as 13 keep 13 delete, isn't that no consensus, not consensus to delete? Arniep 00:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * it might just be a coincidence... but the ip that nominated that list Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 is registered to BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta, and the user that just nominated a huge number of Jewish American lists Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_26 Special:Contributions/65.9.143.76 also resolves to BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta. Arniep 00:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a case of RachelBrown being hoisted by her own petard. The dishonest page she created at List of Jewish lawyers got appropriately (and unanimously) voted as "speedy delete".  But in the meanwhile, someone had redirected the page to List of Jewish jurists. I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure what the interface is, but I'm guessing the (uninvolved) admin who did it made an innocent mistake as a result of the confusing redirects.


 * Frankly though, I'm not exactly unhappy with the result. The page was becoming (or remaining) total crap with the inclusion of utterly unsupported names. Having the whole thing go away is a lot better than having unreliable and unencyclopedic content on a page that, in principle, might deserve to exist (but only if brought to encyclopedic standards). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * well they are supported by the Jewish Year Book, which is unconnected to the American Jewish Year Book and is respected in the UK. Arniep 01:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe they are, maybe they're are not, supported by Jewish Year Book. No one can know if the "insertionist" editors refuse to put the citations in article space.  But given the absence of any support anywhere else for some of names, it's seeming like a pretty craptastic source.
 * actually Rachel/poetlister have been adding the actual page numbers in the articles. Maybe people tend not to advertise their jewishness in the UK as is maybe the case in the U.S., could be where the confusion is coming from. Arniep 01:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * well I'm going to have a word with the admin about it anyway, regardless of disputes, It didn't deserve deletion. Arniep 00:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I assumed someone would.
 * yup me :-) Arniep 01:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears that User:StabRule is a bit obsessed, not only did he nominate Jewish jurists but then placed a sock puppet vote on it Special:Contributions/72.144.71.234 which was noticed by User:JJay in his comment Strong Keep. Changing my vote. Don't like anon noms here + 2nd anom vote, both out of Atlanta.-- JJay 05:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC).. Arniep 01:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about any of that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Political Subproject
Hey Man, i'm doing a subproject in regards to  that political compass test, and I was wondering if you mind if I/you added your score. I'm trying to see where Wikipedians stand overall on the political spectrum. karmafist 05:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was quick. I noticed you haven't gotten a barnstar lately, so I figured i'd put out an apb on some milk cartons for it since you deserve it. Also, I might be in Athol tomorrow for a political thing, if I do make it out there, i'll check for a cyber cafe and drop you a line. karmafist 05:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I might be able to make it to Athol for coffee if you like. Feel free to call me if you're there.  Do a google search for my "real name" and "phone"... you'll find it :-).  Or email to the address on my user page.  Not too difficult, but slightly less of an invitation to prank calls or telemarketers (or death threats :-)). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Lol, will do. And I promise not to try to sell you anything or threaten to kill you, unless you just happen to be in the market for a Murder-O-Matic 5000(patent pending until I get a laptop that can actually type in the ASCII for the trademark symbol and the beta testing is finished down in Guantanamo Bay). Actually, i'm thing i'm going to is a party at 93 Pinedale Rd. (I don't know if that sticks out, my knowledge of the area's roads is "Route 2" and "I-91") If you tell them you hate Bush and/or bring a pie, you'd more than likely become the toast of the party. karmafist 13:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments requested
Lulu, could you have a look at this: User_talk:OwenX. I believe User:StabRule is using multiple sock puppets who originally nominated Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists, they placed another anon ip vote and have now placed another vote under their User:StabRule account, yet User_talk:OwenX says he refuses to even warn StabRule against using sock puppet votes as this might drive him to use more sophisticated ways to subvert the system???? Arniep 22:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think OwenX's reaction seems about right. Anon votes aren't counted on AfD's, so there's no particular effect.  Some of your links point to different IP addresses, which may well all be in the same geographic area, but that's hard to prove much about.  You could open an RfC, but I think it winds up being a lot of work for little effect, most of the time.  I'd just let it go for now.  Btw. I'm not sure if you think I'm an admin, but I'm not... so I can't do anything like block users. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * actually they are counted, an admin counted one in a cfd discussion I was involved in. Cheers Arniep 23:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That was an error by the admin. They are human, after all.  Did it change the outcome? If not, let it go... if it did, you might want to (politely) point it out to that admin.  However, unless the admin explicitly said "the vote was 40/15", s/he may not have counted the anon vote as you think.  Evaluating a CfD isn't simply a matter of counting votes and checking for 75-80%; it makes some difference whom the votes come from, what arguments support the votes, and so on.  It might be that the admin knew well that the anon should not be counted, but still decided that the winning side in a close vote carried the day because, e.g. many highly experienced editors voted in the winning direction. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Lulu, User:StabRule has made a personal attack on me by singling out my classical music category in his vote. I have evidence this user has multiple names and has been carrying out disruption on Jewish lists for months including repeatedly nomming the lists again and again and multi-voting could you help me on this as I feel admins are ignoring me as I have a block listed on my account. Arniep 13:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What you provide as a diff is not remotely a personal attack. It just states that "List of Jewish classical musicians" is "way too specific".  That seems like a perfectly reasonable belief; I'm not saying I agree with it, but it hardly has anything to do with you personally.  I think you're getting way too worked up on this.... after all, didn't you mass nominate a bunch of lists our of WP:POINT, and get blocked as a result.  Even if StabRule has multiple accounts (which I haven't really seen evidenced), that's a much lesser sin.  Still, if you really feel there's a need, open an RfC on the matter/user.  See what other editors opine. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th
I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-28 08:25


 * Yeah, just read it. It looks like a good article.  And certainly it would be a bit too cutesy to run Christmas on Christmas.  Are these questions voted or somethings (and can, I, a humble editor, vote)? If so, I'd be happy to support it.  Being an erstwhile professional philosopher, I like having philosophy articles featured (even if slightly fluffy topics).  I suppose April 1 would be the best day for any paradox article, but that's too far to plan. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologizing for AFD vote
Get a life. Thanks. StabRule 21:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, demanding an apology from someone for putting up an afd that at the time was completely called for - is quite frankly the stupidest thing I've ever seen on someones talk page. Only through user votes did I see that they would prefer it to be made into an index - so kindly - I observed their grievances and agreed to a speedy keep - making it unanimous. If anyone should be apologizing it is the so-called "hotheads" who spewed their guts out on the afd. Ofcourse, I don't see the need for any apologies on anyone's part because in the end a consensus was reached. Learn to live with it. StabRule 21:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't demand anything, I gave you some friendly advice on what was likely to happen as a result of your abuse of administrative mechanisms of Wikipedia. Obviously, you're not fond of "friendly" or "advice", so I'm happy to let you hoist yourself by your own petard. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you have any sense at all, you'll state firmly an unequivocally (with no hedges or justifications), that you were wholly wrong to try to make a content change via AfD. Apologize sincerely on the talk pages of all the people you've most pissed off.


 * If that isn't a strange request to put on someone's talk page then there is no. You have yet to explain why I should apologize for any of my actions - as they were all qualified and followed procedure --- afds are meant for discussion --- originally that discussion was delete but it came to a consensus of speedy keep with reform.


 * A) I set up an afd on a duplicate pages - which is allowed -- someone suggested I keep those pages and instead delete the main page -- in which case I followed the rule that a user can close a discussion if its a speedy keep -- which at that point it was (People claim that afd nominators arent allowed to close their own afds - but that is only suggested and obviously did not cause much controversy under the current situation.
 * B) Afterwards, users claimed that the mainpage should be remodeled instead of deleted
 * C) I changed my vote and asked for a discussion instead of a delete since speedy keep was pending.

Can't see anything wrong with that - no one was hurt, no one was insulted, and hence, no apologize is needed. Clearly you (among others) have been rather offended by the recent purges of Jewish lists and need some type of scapegoat to pour out their emotions on. It hasn't worked as of yet and won't. Again, you have no idea what you're requesting - just basing them on your petty feelings on the subject matter. StabRule 00:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I really don't care all that much about the Jewish lists and categories. I've voted on some of them, mostly because other editors have solicited my input (I think with more confidence in what I would opine than is merited).  My votes on those have been mixed, and have depended on how specific the topics are, and whether I think they can be done in an encyclopedic fashion.  But I'm neither one of those people who votes "keep" for anything with the word "Jewish" in it; nor am I an editor who votes "delete" whenever I see the word (we have some of each, and I think both are acting with a bit of bad faith).


 * I am, however, very offended by abuse of the administrative systems of WP in violation of WP:POINT. I guess you're a newbie, and are perhaps not entirely aware of procedures.  We all start out that way.  In actual fact, there is a "criteria for speedy deletion" that allows removal of pages that have been previously deleted by AfD.  There are a lot of rules floating around, and they are not all consistent with each other, so you can certainly be forgiven for not knowing all, or even most, of them.


 * But an AfD is for a very specific thing, and something very different from your spurious nomination. FWIW, Arniep also violated WP:POINT by massively nominating "Jewish Foo" lists that he actually wanted kept.  And he got blocked for 48 hours (rightly) as a warning.  What an AfD is for is to get a page that you genuinely think fails to cover an encyclopedic topic removed from Wikipedia.  It is not a way to express displeasure with particular editors of that page.  It is not a way to push the idea that the page would be better if modified in some fashion.  And it is not a way to get even with editors who voted "delete" on some other page that you believe is conceptually equivalent to the page you nominate.


 * There are lots of pages that I think should be better, and where I think the editors are putting in material that is not encyclopedic, and where the structure of the article is not optimal (maybe it needs refactoring into subpages). As a good WP citizen who follows Wikiquette, I raise those issues on the article talk pages.  I attempt edits to the page directly.  Perhaps I create a temporary version of the page that more closely fits what I think it should be like.  What I do not do is nominate pages that I think cover worthwhile topics for AfD as a way of bullying the editors whose edits I do not like.


 * If you follow Wikiquette, you'll get along with people here, and be a productive editor. If you violate it, you'll make lots of enemies, increase general animosity, and fail to get anything done.  Your start so far has not been portentious; but you certainly have time left to learn, and to make amends. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

''It is not a way to express displeasure with particular editors of that page. It is not a way to push the idea that the page would be better if modified in some fashion. And it is not a way to get even with editors who voted "delete" on some other page that you believe is conceptually equivalent to the page you nominate.''


 * Lulu, I thought I made clear that the afd was NOT just put up to be a discussion - it was originally put up to BE a deletion and changed midway not on my part. Why shuold I be lectured on not creating AFDs for pushing changes in content material when thats not what I've done? I see this obsession with finding something negative I've done has escalated into madness now. StabRule 04:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill
Sorry man, I gotta be an admin first and an editor second, and my admin senses were tingling there. I protected the page in the hopes that Keetoowah and what looks like everybody else at first sight can come to a happy medium. I'm going to give a check into user:"Stabrule" though, I think that might be a WP:U vio. karmafist 03:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What now, my username is inappropriate? Jesus, if I knew I would have so many people obsessed with me I would have never joined. StabRule 04:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Spidey senses tingling :-). That's OK.  I got at least a chunk of restructuring done (I think the ethnicity section reads a heck of a lot more cleanly than it did a day ago, even if some of the rest could still use some spit and polish).  But I'm sure your sense is right that the best thing is to let people chill and discuss.  From what I can tell in the talk page, Keetoowah has had some previous conflicts with editors on the page; but there certainly seem to be several other editors who also want to push the Fox News line on Churchill.


 * As to StabRule and all that. I dunno.  ArnieP has been trying to convince me (partially) in email, that StabRule is engaging in some kind of massive sockpuppetry, and imploring me to do something about it (who knowns what I might do).  Heh... it's great not to be an admin :-).  But I kinda just don't care.  There are too many editors who act childishly on both sides of the Jewish whatever lists and categories; including bad faith use of AfD's and CfD's, followed by apoplectic accusations of anti-semitism against everyone voting "improperly" (but properly is sometimes "keep" and other times "delete", it's hard to know).  So if you want to use your admin magic to make everything better, way cool, but I reckon it will blow over either way. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Material duplicated from Talk:Ward Churchill
I'm following the article talk page, no need for long duplication here. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

The Ward Churchill situation
A Request For Comment has been opened at Requests for comment/Ward Churchill. Also, what's up with the pic on your user page? It looks like some kind of map of Borneo. karmafist 20:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're saying a photo of me resembles a map of Borneo? I don't know what to say. :-) I guess I'm flattered to look like such a fine island... is my nose the isthmus that points towards Sulawesi? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

List of modern day dictators
I duly note the points you made about 172, and I admit that my actions were borne out of pure frustration. I just felt that it should be noted since it was seemed to be in bad faith - I may be quite wrong. 172 was trying to get the article deleted, and he is a very experienced user - so if he does send out 40 messages, he will do so to those who he thinks will probably vote for his side. Whatever this does do, it doesn't create an atmosphere of trust and good faith - especially with his little trick. But you may be correct. jucifer 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well... yeah, I suppose he will send out messages to people he thinks will agree with him. But he has to be right in his guess 75-80% of the time to improve his odds of winning the AfD vote.  I have no reason to think he could guess anywhere close to that accurately, even if he had some malevalent intent (which he doesn't).  You are equally welcome to solicit input from whatever editors you wish.  There's nothing wrong with this... it's just the nature of consensus building.  I can more-or-less guarantee that if he, or you, or anyone else, sends messages to other editors saying: "I command you to vote so-and-so on an AfD" it will backfire; all you can do is ask for input, which could go either way relative to your own goal. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Point taken - apart from you though did anyone he invited vote to keep? I counted 16-17 who he invited who voted "delete".  I myself was told off by Canderson7  for spamming 12 people I fully see why it is not ideal.


 * I have no idea exactly whom 172 solicited or how they opined. That's way more forensic work than I have any interest in engaging in. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. Yes I am bit sad.  I printed out his contibs and the debate + tallied them up on a flight to London!  I need a good book!  jucifer 19:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Article
Lets make this article a great one - I like the table style you have made. Do you have any thoughts on the name. I am thinking, that the best name of all would actually be "List of dictators" with one of those italicised sub-heading saying For a list of Roman Dictators see List of Roman dictators or something? What are your thoughts?

Lets also work towards a firm and unambiguous definition of dictator - maybe have a vote on it, and then asses the merits of the listed names in that framework.

Yours ever, jucifer 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not going to do more than one revert. I very much appreciate your practical attempts at mediation. Mswati III and Robert Mugabe have more reason to be on this list than Joseph Kabila - but I will revert each of them (once) if I see them there. I simply see it as vindication for (list) Delete. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   19:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I still do not have high hopes for the survival of this list, and I think the discussion is better done on their respective pages (i.e. Categories). Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   07:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You should not be editing the list if your only WP:POINT is to make it more deserving of deletion. That's extremely bad faith (and indeed, a conduct violation).  FWIW, I quite agree that Mugabe has more reason to be listed that does either Kabila.  But the point is that annotations are what make the list worthwhile.  No one has yet listed Mugabe with a good annotation (or even with a bad one).  I've deliberately annotated those names that I think are most borderline for inclusion rather than those that are more clear; I think it does most good to have a note that lets readers judge (probably negatively) well-known claims that so-and-so is a dictator, while not pretending that the characterization is not made. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Note also, Wizzy, that the list description says explicitly at the top that it is a sample, not a complete enumeration. So if we have not yet added back an annotated listing of a particular dictator like Mugabe, that hardly means that we're claiming he is excluded in principle. Few lists on WP are ever complete (even ones that are politically neutral): they just include the things that particular editors knew enough to include.

Actually, I'm on a march against unannotated lists in general. In few cases do I see value in just baldly listing things alleged to be alike in some respect. A list can be valuable if it is use to describe something about why given things fall into a given category, and provide a way to quickly glance at these various inclusions. But there are 5 gazillion more bad lists that I haven't yet attempted to remediate. I can only start where I start. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I second that Wizzy. I am sure you will be sensible.  To ask for the deletion of an article on POV grounds, then cause disruption by refusing to work towards a consensus on NPOV - and then claim that the article is POV and should be deleted. . .hmmm.
 * WIzzy, I hope you will work to make the article NPOV. Like I said before, Mswati is listable under "absolute monarchs" which are seperate to dictators.  Mugabe is borderline, but will either be in or out depending on what the consentual definition of dictator is decided as.


 * Good point lulu, this is an incomplete list. I saw a category like that once, but I can't remmember the syntax. jucifer 19:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in replying
Hi, Sorry for not being able to get back earlier. Last night was nuts with all the vandalism!!! Glad you liked the joke. It cracked me up when I first heard it. Did the test, and I came out as Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92. Interesting result.


 * Excellent. I just have to urge you slightly farther in the social libertarian direction, and we'll be right in lockstep :-).  Mandela's a good guy, but I wonder how my man Mbeki would score (is he the mentioned head of state? *wink*)... either way, very pleased by South African's fine supreme court since yesterday.

re my identity: lol. I'm always bemused as to people asking me that. The best answer I can give is to quote the song "I am what I am" lol I very deliberately didn't use my name when I joined WP because I wanted to be judged as a Wikipedian, not as to who I am. (There are a lot of rather prominent people on WP. As a journalist I discovered the name of three and they are very big names! I have it on good authority that one of our (now departed) contributors was a head of state who was shown the site by a young family member and ended up hooked on it. But my lips are sealed as to who. There are quite a few academics, an editor of a major publication, and people who have held senior government office!) So you'd never know who you are really talking to on WP.


 * I just use the name God gave me at birth: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Actually WP is extraordinarily popular with newspapers. If any more colleagues of mine start saying "You know, you should check that information on this thing called Wikipedia. Let me tell you about it" I'll scream!


 * My writing is some of that that Wikipedia likes to list in Wikipedia_in_the_media. I think it's a great resource (on technical/computer things when I write) to refer readers to.

I was amused to find someone applying my initials to a name in an article and deciding that I was that person. The problem was that their theory presumed the letter d stood for a surname. It actually stands for my third personal name. And the Irish translation of the name they presumed was me again was based on the presumption that the last two letters were O'D (or rather Ó D). Actually the 'O' was there simply because otherwise my initials would have been STD which would have been a rather embarrassing thing to call myself. My O means the same as Harry S. Truman's S.


 * And yet James Earl was inaugurated as Jimmy. The decline of the middle names.  I think I'm going Afghani next. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The fun of having been brought up a Roman Catholic. I had two names at birth, the J and T. Then I took a confirmation name starting with D. Simple really!!! lol FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  03:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Confused? Oh the fun of Wikipedia. Now to go off and find more heads of state to talk to!!! (And, I suspect, a prime minister may also have added in stuff too. An aide of his noticed how he always seemed to have WP on a screen at his desk. When the civil servants were out, and he was supposed to be reading massive briefing files maybe he was on WP writing articles!!!)

Slán FearÉIREANN \(caint)  01:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC) (the man with no name. If I am really a man at all. lol)

Richard Gregg
Your edit doesn't seem consistent with the citation that covers it, as that says that the influence on MLK was direct (by reading his book). --David Woolley 18:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation regarding List of Jewish jurists
Please direct your attention to Requests_for_mediation. Thanks very much! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm... yeah, I've seen it. As I wrote there twice, I still cannot discern any issue for mediation.  For that matter, no participants either, if RachelBrown has really left WP (which IMO would be a good thing if she refuses to follow WP:V and WP:NOR).  I guess Poetlister can send some email to herself if she wants.  The article talk pages seem like perfectly good places to discuss lists, and the merit of including particular items.


 * If it's just a matter of RachelBrown and Poetlister wanting to express the sentiment that they don't like me, that's fine with me. They've put that on the article talk page.  I suppose they can email it to the address on my user page if it makes them feel better (I won't respond, but I'll receive it).  But it's sort of a boring sentiment, and not worth wasting your time on, Flcelloguy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Cut and paste move
Hi Lulu, I think I fixed it. See List of dictators. I kind of got lost as to where the page ought to be per consensus, so I just moved it back to the status quo ante. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Very pretty. Thank you. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A thank you from Ann
Hi, Lulu. I just want to say a big thank you to you for your support for my RfA. I haven't been able to thank you earlier, as I was very caught up with college work. Anyway, it was nice to get so many support votes from people who have disagreed with me in the past. And I promise I'll try to resist the temptation to insert "His Holiness" into the Pope Benedict XVI article and protect it in that version! By the way, I've changed my username, to give myself greater anonymity, but you can probably figure out who I am. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey... at least I can't misspell your new username. Well, at least I hope not :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Bob Dylan dispute
There seems to exist a year-spanning content dispute/edit war. Can you explain it to me? Jkelly 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really :-). I think fans of Dylan can sometimes be peculiar.


 * I participated in an RfC against User:Monicasdude who had been really disruptive on the page. Not outrageously bad edits, but very obnoxious about thinking he "owns" the page and every other editor is wrong about every edit.  I guess he runs some kind of Dylan fansite outside of WP, and fancies himself an "expert".  Since the RfC, he's mostly been well behaved.


 * There's another user who posts from an IP address, but annotates "ROHA" to most of his edits. That user makes weirdly irrelevant edits.  Not quite vandalism, but just things that don't make sense.  For example, for a while he had it in his head that the lead before the TOC should be a single sentence, and no more, then edit war'd over that.  Often his edits and talk page comments are insulting to other editors, but they're always hard to make sense of.


 * That's about it, actually. A couple other editors get a little bit bristly at times, but that's true of pretty much any page.  Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was certainly an unheated and concise description.  Appreciated.  Jkelly 03:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The appropriate description is not "participated in," but "fabricated." As virtually every outside editor who participated noted, the RfC claims ranged from the hypocritical to the outright dishonest. In an effort by several admins to resolve the dispute, you were cited on several occasions for violating the no personal attacks policy, a policy that your comments here demonstrate your refusal to abide by. This is a continuing display of malice: I disputed an edit you made and feel strongly about -- an edit that multiple admins agreed violated Wikipedia NPOV/NOR policy -- and you dishonestly converted the dispute into a demonstrably false claim about rejecting edits from all other editors.Monicasdude 16:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the misunderstanding in re: removal vs. refactoring. I should have checked the history.   The only thing I noticed was that your edit summary read "rv vandalism", and lept to the assumption you didn't want anything there at all.  Jkelly 23:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sorry I overcharacterized the change in my edit comment. It wasn't really vandalism as such.  Putting the inline comment was silly given that it was a conversation Monicasdude was not involved in at all (and that had ended a week before), but the fact it was inline is not in itself significant.  I was a little more sensitive to Monicasdude's reversion of my refactoring, a minute after I did it, than was merited (though trying to stop me from refactoring my own talk page is a bit annoying).  In the past though, Monicasdude engaged in edit wars over e.g. the placement of comments within the RfC-specified format when there was an RfC against him (he apparently didn't like the format used)... so I guess I was thinking it portended a similar pattern for my own talk page (actually, he's done the same type of thing on my talk page, and those of other users, in the past too). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Lulu's practice of posted weirdly distorted, if not outright fictitious, descriptions of other editors' actions is approaching the pathetic. To take two examples in particular: First, as a quick review of the history of this page will show, I've posted in only two other threads here (once to report a 3RR violation by user:Lulu), and did not alter the content or placement of any other editor's comments. Second, my actions in the "edit war" which user:Lulu pretends happened on the RfC page consisted only of reversing edits he'd made to my comments -- his changes included, at one point, posting a faux response under my name, using an answer I'd given to another editor's question. Several other editors objected to his actions, and an admin intervened. Monicasdude 19:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetlister
Check out List_of_Jewish_lawyers. I think this is the fork of List of Jewish jurists created by RachelBrown that I moved to her user subspace. Do you have a view as to what should happen to it? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an obvious speedy delete candidate. It was overwhelmingly voted speedy delete on VfD recently: Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_lawyers.  I'm not sure what goal she has in mind with the latest shennanigans, but I sort of think it's blatant enough to warrant some sort of censure. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that, Lulu. This is getting tiresome. As I recall, List of Jewish lawyers was deleted after an AfD, because it's some kind of copy or fork of List of Jewish jurists. RHaworth moved it to List of Jewish jurists/temp. I moved that to User:RachelBrown/List of Jewish juriststemp because it was a personal draft. Now Poetlister is kicking up a fuss about it being in user subspace. See User_talk:Poetlister and Village_pump_%28assistance%29, where she also claims I'm in mediation with her. It's all becoming a little bizarre. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's a RfM out there on which I'm listed, but that I've expressed no interest in participating in (because it's pointless). But a couple editors who want expanded Jewish lists still think it's active.  Strange silliness. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Antidote
Hi, these accounts are the same person. Did you look at Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments. Thanks Arniep 18:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what you said about the way the user speaks, the accounts in fact exhibit exactly the same manner using profanities and using the same phrases. Regards Arniep 20:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well... if you can show that these actually are sockpuppets, I suppose the accounts will be banned. I have yet to see anything in all your comments and email that make me think the claim reaches likely, and maybe just barely reaches remotely plausible.  I think you claimed somewhere that the several accounts never edited at exactly the same second, and that was somehow proof.  I have no idea if that's even true, but my wild guess would be that you and I (for example) have no simultaneous edits either.  Am I your sockpuppet, or are you mine? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, Arniep. English isn't even my first language nor do I speak it at home, yet somehow I doubt you can tell that from the way I type. Now all of a sudden you're a writing-recognition expert. Antidote 20:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly a speech-pattern expert either, but it's not hard for me to tell that Antidote is a non-native English speaker (with a high proficiency though; his/her multilingualism is to be praised). In contrast, StabRule seems to be a native speaker, but one with a failure of cordiality that I have not seen in Antidote.  I haven't really read enough from the various other alleged aliases to form an opinion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I knew he wasn't a native english speaker from a previous comment he made. You cannot infer a user's residence from the location of the server which is assigned to the user at any one time, a user may be assigned any number of servers in different locations belonging to one ISP, in this case BellSouth Inc., Atlanta. Not one ip I listed is not from this company. Regards Arniep 21:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, everyone I know of uses Bellsouth. It's like Direct TV or Adelphia. Let's not be kidding ourselves. I'm fine with you putting an RFC on me, Arniep, since everyone has to get one at least once, but spamming pages is a little out of hand. You truly seem to be obsessed with hatred for me and my edits. Later. Antidote 21:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello, I wanted the user to admit using sock puppets but as its obvious they are not going to, ArbCom has confirmed that the four accounts have accessed through the same ip address. Arniep 23:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Lulu, how do you think I managed to track down all these accounts? Am I psychic?? No. I observed the exact same pattern of behaviour and use of language in all of them. I didn't ask ArbCom for matches on any other than these four accounts, and they confirmed the links between all four. Regards Arniep 02:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Just wanted to say hello. You are all over my watchlist, usually making agreeable (in my POV) edits. Stay well. --Ezeu 14:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What a strange watchlist you have, then :-). I find I tend to get attached to particular topics (or small clusters of them), almost at random.  I'm interested (and slightly knowledgeable) in a lot of different things, but sometimes I develop an attachment to fixing articles even where I really did not know anything beforehand.  For example, sometimes I'll vote against delete of something (like academics, who seem to suffer a negative bias on AfD), but then feel like I need to help a stub be worth keeping, even if I did not know about (or barely knew about) that topic to start with.


 * Anyway, I appreciate the support, and that you find my edits mostly agreeable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey
Jeff Merkey is at it again... just thought you should know... http://merkeylaw.com/ If it is gone... try here.... http://www.johncollins.org/ml/2005-12/13-00:31/index.html You might want to warn Jimbo & Frank. Anyways... Enjoy... it is hilarious. --Kebron 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is delightful. So much so it should be on my page here, at least my own entry. I've taken Merkey's article off my watchlist though; it seems like it is in good hands (especially now that Merkey has a permanent WP ban). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Listing of Internet Stalkers, Intellectual Property Thieves, and Internet Libelers
Typos and bad spelling are, of course, from the original. I guess it's meant to threaten me by giving my contact info; though anyone can very easily find the same stuff with a couple clicks from my user page (or with Google). I wonder if there is meant to be some sort of homophobic insinuation here, since I apparently stalk men "over the internet" (and Merkey has previously made homophobic rants, including on the article about me). I'll have to ask my good friend Jimbo what he thinks :-).

Still... while I don't care about the rest, I'm scandalized that Merkey doesn't call me by my proper name: Dr. Mertz. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

ROHA
I think I've got his beef over the spelling of "Zimmerman"- click Autoharp Best wishes Lion King 01:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand the connection. Of course the name has different spellings, but I'm not sure why the fact that a different Zimmerman had something to do with the development of the Autoharp means anything about Dylan's family name.  Likewise, some people are named Johnson, some Johnston, some Jonsen, and so on... all of them at some point presumably having non-literate ancestors, or at least prior to orthographic normalizations. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dylan plays Autoharp, and ROHA knows it- make sense? Lion King 09:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope, still no idea. Sorry.  I'm sure Dylan has indeed played Autoharp.  And I don't doubt ROHA knows that (or he might not, I'm not certain).  But then I stop in having any thought to follow. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, would you mind clarifying on WP:RfM whether you are interested in continuing? From your previous comments, I'm not sure whether you were still interested. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia
I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence EffK 03:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who this user is or why I might wish to know about this RfA. As far as I can see, nothing I've ever edited relates to it in any way. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Fluterst
Just asked Karynn, who has checkuser status, and she says Fluterest isn't even on the same continent as Keetoowah. So unless Keetoowah has done some moving or has some kind of crazy IP switcher thing beyond my understanding that allows him to access providers from other continents, I think it's two different people. karmafist 06:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, sounds like it's a different person. Hopefully one who will tire quickly of POV-mongering. It still strikes me as peculiar that there are about a half dozen editors on Ward Churchill who have never edited anything else (or barely anything else).  Of course, that's perfectly allowable... people can have whatever interests they want to.  But it still feels odd.


 * FWIW, I could spoof my location with a proxy if I really wanted to, as could a fair number of people... but the simpler assumption is still that it's just someone different who was attracted to the same political agenda. However, I am pretty confident it's not someone genuinely new to WP.  Which is allowed too, of course, albeit slightly dishonest to create accounts merely to dissassociate yourself from an edit history. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi David, I notice you seem very intolerant of new users ensuring the full story is told about important subjects. I urge you to more carefully consider your edits especially those that restore spelling and grammatical errors. I have noticed Wikipedia in the news lately for serious error and bias and was curious to see whether this is true. I hope you are not the type of Wikipedia person Bill O'Reilly warned me about. Fluterst 09:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Political Compass
Right on! Is there a barnstar for being the most left-wing social libertarian?

Actually, I was quite surprised how left libertarian I came out. As I say on my user page, these days I'm just a dilettante; I used to be quite active in my younger days, but I'm quite disillusionend with politics these days - hence my surprise.

Incidentally, does Karmafist update the averages and the chart himself? It looks rather complicated to me...

Hasta la victoria siempre!

Camillus  talk | contribs 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, AFAIK, he just updates things manually. I suppose if it gets more editors joining, maybe he should do something automated. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:behave
I don't know if it is of interest to you, but on Templates for deletion there is a vote to delete a template called behave. It is designed to deal with kiddie vandalism and works excellently where a tough message is more likely to drive someone off but a humourous template gets them to be constructive, but by the usual WP mob are trying to delete it. (I'm all in favour of deletions of unencyclopædic content but the scale of deletions on WP is out of control. I'm on the brink of quitting WP at this stage I am so fed up of it. WP has gone to the dogs IMHO.) FearÉIREANN \(caint)  23:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll go take a look and vote on it. Is this a template you use yourself? I wouldn't get too upset by a few deletionists.  There are so many corners of WP, that it's easy for editors in perfectly good faith to think the things they are unfamiliar with are thereby unimportant.  But everything is always going to the dogs... the good old days just aren't what they used to be :-).  It's a thing that happens as you approach 40 y.o., trust me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Maintainer
Hey Lulu, I was wondering what your opinions were about the Maintained template idea. Just curious. Pete.Hurd 07:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I added a comment to the deletion nomination. Basically just saying that I agree with you. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I also made a much longer comment at Template talk:Maintained. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Maintained
I'm a little puzzled by this. Did you intend to include the entire guideline section on every page that uses the template? It's rather large now ;-) &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 01:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I reinserted the tag, but now the "ownership" bit is gone, which I think folks wanted to keep. I don't want to revert an intentional removal by you, but I'm worried that you didn't realize the "guidlines" were not intended to be included but the "ownership" disclaimer was.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Left Coast
Yeah, I liked living in Vancouver (even when I lived in Vancouver's downtown East side, but liked living in Commercial Drive and on Davie in the West End better). You know, maybe Alberta needs me here lecturing the next generation, you know sort of like some of the population of Austin or Berkeley could do the world a favour by moving to Kansas or Ohio and voting. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 03:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly can't claim a superior geography, being in the USA. Albeit, Massachusetts is about as good as we get in the states.  FWIW, Austin probably has no need to move, given it's already in Texas :-(.  But maybe putting Berkeley in Kansas could lessen some of that state's retrograde tendencies.  Btw. I confess I've never been to Alberta, but Vancouver is absolutely my favorite city in the world (that I've been to), and I fantasize about moving there all the time (i.e. as an expat who no longer pays taxes towards bombs to drop on Muslim children). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)