User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive16

Category:Underutilized crops
Thanks for weighing in on the discussion of deleting or renaming Category:Underutilized crops. I've responded to the issue of whether the title is POV or not on the discussion page: short version - "underutilized crops" is a standard term among UN organizations and other NGO's who deal with food security. Thought I'd point you to the followup, in case you hadn't seen it. I wonder if you'd consider changing your view, if you think the argument holds water?


 * If the category page can provide a more clear description of exactly what the UN and other organizations mean by the term, and what criteria they use to qualify them as such, I might be more sympathetic to the category. I think even so I'd prefer a list for this; such a list could include annotations about exactly which organizations classify a crop as underutilized, perhaps with a few words about its actual usage currently and historically.  Categories are a bit too crude as a tool for this, since it doesn't allow any differentiation of the reasons for "underutilization".  For example, some little utilized crops might be so simply because their yield is much less than other crops grown in the same area.


 * Good suggestions, thanks. I'll see what I can do to implement the changes you suggest. As I suggested in the discussion, the major reason for a category was the ability to backlink to the category from the articles. This would be helpful for people concerned with food security, biodiversity or poverty alleviation, and who are looking at articles on particular plants from this point of view. If I understand correctly, a list wouldn't be very helpful for this. Any wisdom on how that need is best met? Waitak 07:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's certainly possible to add a "see also" pointing to a list to an article on a particular crop. But just because someone is reading about mung beans doesn't necessarily mean that want to know about biodiversity or poverty alleviation (worthy concepts though they are)... maybe they just want some recipes, or a backyard garden.  More relevant would be linking from article on food security, biodiversity, seed libraries, and the like. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've addressed your first point (usage of the term) on the category page. See what you think. Regarding the second point - food security, biodiversity and the like are all good motivations to care about underutilized plant species, but the category that they below to is "plants that are known to be useful if cultivated, but that aren't currently cultivated on a significant scale". It seems to me that having the category there addresses the needs of all of the above, no matter what their motivation for using it. Waitak 08:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the description is good and helpful; but I still think it works better as a list (you can copy the description easily enough). Categories group unlike things.  The "underutilization" of kudzu is a lot different from the underutilization of buckwheat, for example.  For that matter, hemp seems not to be listed, which is "underutilized" for a still different reason. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

(dedent) Would you suggest, then, that I add "See also" links in the articles for particularly useful underutilized plant species? I don't see that as a problem, I guess, and it does provide a means to distinguish reasons for underutilization. One thing I'd like to prevent, though, is losing all of the work I've done finding these things and grouping them. If the category disappears out from under me before the equivalent list article was written - if that's the decision reached - many hours of research risk disappearing with it. Waitak 08:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I'd recomend:
 * Turn it into a list
 * Add all the plants currently in the category to the list
 * Annotate the listed items with a few words about what it means for that plant to be underutilized
 * Add a mention of the list to some of the important underutilized crops. E.g. I really don't think greater use of kudzo as a foodstuff is a great plan :-).  Ideally, the link can be in prose, e.g.: "Buckwheat is considered an underutilized crop by the United Nations Food Program" (or whatever).  But a "see also" is acceptable, though slighly less good.
 * Add a mention of the list in some other relevant articles: maybe biodiversity, food security, etc.
 * Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Re kudku - With due respect, that's because you're living in North America! (Yes, I know about the Plant That Ate The South...) It's a staple in my local grocery store, here in Hong Kong. See the PFAF or Handbook of Energy Crops articles, for descriptions of kudzu as a food crop. NPOV, good sir, NPOV... ;-)
 * It's true I do. Not a part affected by kudzu specifically, but the US national media sometimes writes about it.  But it is true that there are reasons other than monoculture agribusiness why kudzu isn't at my local grocery: the plant is genuinely disruptive of North American ecological systems, and would be environmentally unfriendly to cultivate here.  Just calling it by a very generic category doesn't let readers know about these types of issues.  Mind you, it's not like I have some anti-kudzu agenda... it's just an example that seemed notable when I browsed the category. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Re a list - Reasonable recommendation. I'd still argue for keeping the category too, but I'll start on a list article tomorrow. The category's not going to be yanked out from under me in the meantime, is it? Waitak 09:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually category deletion takes a while to happen, even after CfD's are closed. But I can't make any specific guarantees.  I'd go ahead and save the category for later reference.  I think if you save the HTML page, you can easily edit it down to the list of crops you are interested in.  Or just print it on a piece of paper, it's only a couple minutes to type them all in later. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Python aside
(As a complete aside, you might be interested that the two NGO's  that I'm part of both use Python (partly, but not by any means entirely in the context of Zope/Plone, but still...) as a primary tool in their humanitarian work. Python's been my primary programming language for almost a decade.) Waitak 05:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool! It's nice to see the language used, and especially among worthwhile organizations. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an amazing language. It's the only programming language I've ever used where it's easier to just write something than it is to do it in pseudo-code first and then recode. I only wish it weren't so big. For small-footprint applications, I think Lua has firmly captured the high ground. If there were a decent Python implementation that fits in 1Mb or so, I'd be ecstatic! Pippy just never went anywhere, and the Nokia implementation is just that. Waitak 07:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A newbie question
Hi, I have watched your grat work on many articles and I hope you can answer my question. What do you believe qualifies as a "good source"? I had a dispute with some people on Collapse of the World Trade Center. UF 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A guideline about this is at Reliable sources. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Lulu...I was off line...I noticed UF's editing the 9/11 related articles and should have watched it more closely...s/he appears to be indefinitely blocked now.--MONGO 22:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's OK, you're permitted to leave WP for short whiles :-).  The UF critter did it a couple more times... but indeed someone else (Voice of All) put on an indefinite block, which is good. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations)
David, in your last edit on this article your edit comment was: "restore deleted quote in Barsamian interview (why was this killed, it looks perfectly good; the lead to it was a bit informal initially, but the quote itself is germane".

The reason I removed it is because it is largely redundant with the section The General Allotment Act. It didn't read well in the article repeating the information, so I provided a link to the Dawes Act section from the Questioned ethnicity section and removed the detail from the Questioned section. If you think the quote is needed, I think it should go in the other section. It seemed to me though that it wasn't really adding anything as Churchill's views on the subject are already discussed in detail in the other section. If you think my comments here should be reflected on the talk page instead, feel free to move them there. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 17:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree there is a certain repetition between that and the GAA section. But it's a bit different spin at issue. At least as the anon editor presents it, the Barsamian interview is used in relation to Churchill's own ethnicity. The GAA section is about scholarly disagreements on the meaning of the Act. Moreover, while we have a quote in the GAA where Churchill affirms his belief, this quote is more specific in describing Churchill's interpretation. Maybe we should add a note like "see also below section" to make the connection. Btw. your lead to the discussion of Churchill's attitude about his ethnicity is much better than the anon wrote, thanks for that. The anon's edit was a bit pedantic in tone, I thought, though the quote it introduced is worth keeping. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh... quick followup to myself. I think a bit of "forshadowing" of one topic under another works nicely in many articles.  When I write professionally, I often try to do that: drop a little semi-enigma that readers will be thinking about when they get to a wider discussion of the same thing.  But then, I tend towards a little bit of literary flair rather than neutral description, even in technical documents.  If you'd rather incoporate the Barsamian quote somehow into the GAA section, however, with your existing forward reference, I'd be fine with that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not a racialist
Lulu, your claim that I am (1) a racialist and (2) disavow that really made me angry. I have no idea what Racialist is supposed to mean (my own dictionary says it is the same as Racist, by the way), but I disagree forcefully with pretty much every statement on the linked article. Also, least don't insinuate that I lie about my own opinions. I have been extremely careful about bringing in my own POV into the R&I article during my entire stay here (a single attempt to push a Rawlsian view, via some Gottfredson quotes), which I think is a sound stance for editing here. My only contribution has been the footnote system (because I am a geek), and some details about maths and stats (because I am a mathematician). Arbor 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There may be a difference in usage between the USA and UK. Are you in the latter? I've certainly found a very large proportion of your edits extremely disturbing for advancing a racialist perspective, well beyond anything that is supported by WP:V and WP:NPOV evidence provided.  But the term "racialist" is indeed quite distinct in meaning from "racist", in sociological and political science circles.  Not 100% unconnected, of course, but certainly non-identical.  However, in the Racialism article, the removal of the usage by white supremecists is inappropriate: Those folks deliberately appropriate the word in order to say "We're racialist not racist".  Not to say I believe them, but there is a longstanding distinction that they are utilizing in the claim.


 * I had never read the Racialism article before today. It seems moderately OK in giving the meaning of the term; but I was certainly well familiar with the term (and its differences from the term "racism") for many decades before I ever edited WP. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in Sweden. All my dictionaries are British, so I am influenced by that dialect more than by AE (But not in this matter. I had no idea what the term meant. English is my 3rd language.) I remain confused about your claims about my edit history. Certainly, to the main article I have contributed very little. (I have checked the last half year now. A handful. The only think that is suspicious is the removal of the Holocaust in favour of the T4 programme, but I really thought we all agreed on that? It should be about T4, not about Jews and Gypsies. Earlier, I have lobbied strongly for some editorial decisions (proper references, and a separate Race and intelligence (public controversy), but I don't think any position can be inferred from that. That being said, on the Talk page I often defend the hereditarian position. You may call me that. Hereditarian. That's fine. Or Darwinist. I firmly believe that the are hereditary, genetically significant differences between geographically separate breeding populations, and that these differences are a contributing factor to cognitive traits as well. If that is the definition of racialist (and before checking the term I thought so), then... but it doesn't seem to be. Maybe Pinkerist will become a term sooner of later. Call me that. But don't conflate my position with an essentialist view on racial classification, nor a political belief that this classification should be perpetuated by society (be that by racial pride, affirmative action, segregation, discrimination or anything else). "People should be treated as individuals"—after many years of thinking, I think that's the only absolute statement about society that I would sign. And if I understand Racialism correctly, that's the opposite. Arbor 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm entirely with you on the change about the T4 program. That was good.  And perhaps I am partially misremembering about exactly which edits you made, versus some other contemporary editors.  I don't want to propogate any conflict around this (though I would recommend chilling on what Ultramarine puts on her own user page)... as a gesture, I'll go remove my comment about you from Talk:Race and intelligence.  I shouldn't have jumped in to the matter, since it's really not my conflict, nor anything I need to be involved in. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, Lulu, I think we are cool. I'll be off to bed now. Arbor 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Lulu, there have been editors of R&I whom I suspect would own the title racialist. So long as they behave and don't bother me I get along with them fine. IMHO, Arbor is not one of them. --Rikurzhen 22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Lulu, could you weigh in at Talk:Race_and_intelligence? Thanks if you can, Nectar 05:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ward
I am heading out but will look at Ward Churchill in a few hours...the intro needs expansion and I am favor of keeping it NPOV for sure. I disagree with his views at times, but defend his right to state them.--MONGO 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I left a note with Bell and on the Ward Churchill article, I don't know if it helped much. I see also there is disagreement with the scandals category...I have to agree that I find the issue of scandals somewhat POV in most cases, and in the Churchill article, it seems to be unnecessary. I mean, nothing about him to my knowledge is current news outside perhaps Colorado. Monica/Bill Clinton was a scandal...Rowe/Leaking info on secreat agents is a scandal IMO. Anyway, let me know how it's going and I'll keep it monitored.--MONGO 09:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. I agree on the scandal category.  It's a bit silly as a category, and borders on POV.  Not just for this article, but in general.  I suspect there was a motive underneath adding it other than some neutral attempt at classification... i.e. the cat is meant to imply that Churchill is "scandalOUS".  But it seemed within the bounds of good faith, for the two child articles, so I don't care that much.  Anyone browsing the cat can read the full articles for details, and those are in fairly good shape now (i.e. NPOV). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 13:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Relevant material added to the talk page for the Public Opinion article
Hi Lulu otLE, I did a little more research on the matter, that is what motivated the change I made. So, could you please check out the talk page and maybe we could discuss the issue there... Betsy betsythedevine 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Gus Hall
Gus Hall is Jewish I assure you. I dont have the link but it can be confirmed. Additionally his original name was something along the lines of "Halberg" which is a common Jewish name. I know his dad was Jewish but I was not 100 pecent sure about his mom so I only put that he was born to a Jewish father and I left that he was still Finnish. I didnt remove that. I do not lie. Additionally I really feel that its a shame that you added white supremacist groups in the article for racialism. JJstroker 06:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You assure me. Yeah right... I'm sure that your word is good enough for an encyclopedia, even though you don't have any supporting evidence . If you think you can provide verifiable evidence of this claim that meets WP:V and WP:RS, please give it on Talk:Gus Hall for other editors to examine. I'm afraid we're not going to take the unsupported assurance of one editor with (let alone one with a very suspicious edit history). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk page
Hi Lulu, I've sprotected it for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks muchly. Of course, I'm a much bigger fan of semi-protection than most editors are (or than the guideline/policy really says)... I'd want it used pretty much at the first whiff of vandalism and edit warring on a page, since the restriction it imposes is so moderate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Playing around with Glaciers
I mved one of the latest versions of Glacier retreat to my userspace and in just a few edits, I may have solved the brakedown by continent...take a quick look here: User:MONGO/gr...I can provide a little intro into each section and tweak the section heading descriptions some...but I think it looks better, but the sections are long, but there is less "my continent is hardly mentioned stuff" potential. I'm going to play with this tonight some more, but gotta run now. I think we may as well throw our hats in the furnace and elaborate on global warming as the cause...the article is close, most of the objections may actually be eliminated by just redesigning...oh, and the Harvard referencing is much better,,,I didn't have to reposition a single citation at the end, cause of the alphabetizing...that made it oh so easy.--MONGO 05:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I think I like the reorganization approach quite a bit. The lattitude certainly seems more central to the conceptual scheme than do the individual continents.  And a number of FA reviewers seem to want something more like this.  Also the whole jump into global warming issues, which I'm less fond of including... not because it's not true, but just because there already are articles on general global warming issues.  But I would recommend getting some feedback from the actual experts who have contributed... little old me is just a semi-educated layperson :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Message vs. messenger
Who the heck am I to tell you to chill? Well, I posted on Mr. Bells page a response he has about you claiming he is insulting you. I don't see any insults...and you and I know what insults are...that's how we met!:)...(or at least my comments to you many months ago certainly were insulting) anyway, I am just reminding you, as my friend, to attack the message, not the messanger. Just leave it at this, don't shoot me...for I am just the messenger. An article like glacier retreat is benign...there is nothing really that is getting anyone hot behind the collar cause there is so little POV involved...evidence...galciers are all melting...not much to contradict it. As you know, Ward Churchill is an article that is going to have polarizing things about it. I respect your efforts to "protect" the article from hostile takeover from anti churchill forces...lest we get carried away with our zealousness though...now you can come "rescue" me from getting hot when I deal with the CT morons in the articles related to 9/11.--MONGO 10:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Retract or substantiate your allegation
I see you left a "peace offering" on my talk page. If you are sincere then either provide a retraction of your allegation (not simply strikethru or delete) on the Talk:Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy):

"What's the story, Doug, with every single many edit summaries you make insulting me? (some at the NA project, and elsewhere). Ah well... I guess it might help you get it out of your system."

or substantiate this by identifying the edit summaries in which I insulted you. Until this is resolved, your peace offering is simply rhetoric. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the comment from the article talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no. Either provide a retraction or substantiate. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears you've performed the substantiation on my behalf already. If this is really your bete noir, there were some additional jibes at me in edit comments to my talk page, MONGO's talk page, and a few other places, that you are welcome to dig up.  I commend you on your documentation efforts in support of my offhand comment; but I'm not going to play this silly game any further. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is my bête noire. I made it easy for you.  Just go highlight the insulting comments (I added my edit summaries from your talk page and MONGO's talk page).  If there are other comments you want me to include, let me know, but simply making vague references to "other pages" is not providing any substantiation.  You may consider this a "silly game", but I take assuming good faith seriously and have bent over backwards to do that with you.  You have made a number of disingenuous comments that have implied that I am not assuming good faith, but this allegation is specific.  If I have indeed been insulting you, then simply point out where.  If on the other hand, your "offhand comment" was incorrect, what is your problem with providing a retraction?  You can't simply defame someone's character and then expect not to accept responsibility for your comments.  You made a peace offering, which I'm assuming in good faith was genuine, but if you aren't willing to resolve this issue, then what does the offering mean? – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if you were going to take the rope or the honorable retreat I was offering. You didn't surprise me. Anyway, I appreciate that you were finally willing to identify the statements where you claim I insulted you. I think the edit comments where you claim I insulted you are rather silly and for the life of me am having a hard time seeing them as you claim to. However, this moves it from character assasination through innuendo to something that people can actually base an informed opinion on, which is all I wanted.

I'm not willing to declare peace just yet&mdash;I'd like to see how a cease fire goes first. Please try to assume good faith until proven otherwise...believe it or not, I have been trying very hard to do so with you.

I realize you are viewing me through glasses colored by the box you've put me in, but hopefully you will eventually come to see where your simplistic view of me is flawed, and hopefully I will come to see where my necessarily simplistic view of you is flawed as well. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 03:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Underutilized crops
Thanks for the feedback during the CfD discussion. The category is clearly much stronger now. The process wasn't entirely welcome at the time, but I'm also grateful that I was prodded to make the additions that I did. Onward! Waitak 03:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey Talk Page Issues
You know, I agree I should not replicate WP:RS and LKML sections on that talk page. As many times as I've put it there no one seems to be reading it. I would appreciate you explaining to me how unveridable LKML posts dont fail WP:RS. Thanks. Waya sahoni 08:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you would stop verbatim copying (in multiple copies) of the same material composing articles found elsewhere on WP. Everyone has read them, and no one else thinks they say anything remotely similar to the interpretation you are pushing.  More junk on talk pages isn't going to promote a new interpretation, just a high level of annoyance with you.  WP:RS, as you know doubt know, is a guideline for evaluating sources, not a WP policy.  Moreover, the LKML is no less reliable as a primary source than any other electronic site, or printed magazine for that matter.  Of course, we never know with 100% confidence the authenticity of any single source.  But we have many, many consistent confirmations that such-and-such posts actually did occur on the LKML, and that is part of the article content.  The fact these posts occurred is what we discuss in the article, we do not rely on the veracity of the specific claims that might be made in these LKML posts.


 * Assuming WP:FAITH (bending over backwards to do so), another analogy might be a speech by a politician. If a president, for example, claims that "the economy grew more under my administration than under any other president", the specific claim is automatically suspect by virtue of the highly interested position of the speaker.  However, the fact the politician said that in a speech is notable in itself.  Other sources would be used to compare actual economic growth, but the quote can be presented as a quote whether it purports a true fact or not.


 * I am well aware that Merkey (whom you claim not to be, albeit unreliably), has disclaimed authorship of some posts, years after they were made, and after years of acknowledging the same authorship. That fact is also documented in the article as well.  So we do not present the source uncritically in the article.  At the same time, we do not treat the source as irrelevant either.  The LKML posts that are used (a couple out of probably hundreds of thousands that have occurred) are presented with certain caveats, and supported by other evidence that tends to support them.  It's hard to imagine being any more meticulous about verifying and qualifying sources than the editors of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey have been.  But then, I think you know all of that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can locate no reliable source Jeff authored any of those emails. I find the opposite.  Your belief is not verifiable facts.  The materials fall within the barred category.  LKML is dubious and the content can nd should be A) moved to LKML or B) removed.  As for good faith arguments, they fall apart when I see an editor modify comments I have made and signed to alternate and opposite viewpoints, then attribute the statements to me.  Waya sahoni 09:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are simply and plainly wrong about this. I've edited WP a lot longer, a lot more carefully, and with a lot better quality work, than you have (especially under the claim you joined in January 2006).  I understand the intention of WP guidelines, and no experienced editor would for one moment read WP:RS in the rather tortured manner you are trying to construe it.  FWIW, I also have a much larger background in understanding academic and journalistic citation standards than you do.  The same is true of most of the editors who have edited the Merkey page (there are a few newbies there as well, but some well experienced editors).


 * Show me just one source that verifies this, and I will agree with you. Just one.  Waya sahoni 09:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The principle source is Reliable sources. It is entirely clear in not saying the absurd position you are trying to push. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen that you have done some perfectly fine edits to other topics like the United Keetoowah Band. If you continue your behavior in relation to the Merkey article, there is no question whatsoever in my mind that you will get blocked soon, even if you are not a sockpuppet of User:Gadugi.  It would be a shame for you to be prevented from useful editing because your access was blocked for this obnoxious disruption of the Jeff Merkey page.  I'm not an administrator, I certainly can't do any blocking... but I know that actions wind up having consequences. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen you have not done fine edits. I also feel threatened by your tone and language.  I really don't want to deal with the problems with that article to be honest.  All I did was put a tag in the article, and I was mobbed.  Talk page and user page vandalism for days, harassment, personal attacks, you name it.  The fact is those people squatting on that article are disruptive.  No one is even allowed to put a tag in it.  I really think Wikipedia would be a better place without trolls and people who misuse it.  That's kind of how things look to me on that article. Waya sahoni 09:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish you success in your other endeavors outside of Wikipedia then. Those would be a better use of your time and attention. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I noticed from the edit summary you took it upon yourself to alter my comments on that talk page to an opposite position you esspoused using deceptive edit summaries which contained a signature block from me. Please dont do that again. This seems exceptionally dishonest. Thanks. Waya sahoni 08:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It was extremely insulting of you to characterize my vote (and that of the other 8 editors who voted on the pseudo-RfC) as for a position antithetical to my/our intention. Don't do that! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And this justifies altering comments under my signature block with an opposite viewpoint then attributing the comments to me? Waya sahoni 09:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no obvious signature on the "vote result" list... but feel free to add my username to the accurate description of the votes, if you like. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As you have pointed out, the original RFC page is available for all to review. Waya sahoni 09:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not banned
User:Gadugi was never banned, only blocked indefinetly. However, User:Waya sahoni is ignoring the fact that his RFC has been rejected, and as such the edits made under the flag of an RFC can be viewed as sailing against the wind and perpetuating the conflict. I am trying to point this out on his user page, though he appears to ignore me. We'll see where this is going to end.. --MJ( &#x260E; 10:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Lulu, please refrain from personal attacks, or false allegations of sockpuppetry or banned users. This issue has already been addressed by mediation and addressed.  Continued attacks violate WP:NPA.  I am not Jeff, though I am related to him (as are all Cherokee from Oklahoma).  Thanks. Waya sahoni 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Does this relationship happen to be of the type where you see his face when you look in the mirror? It certainly is interesting that the contact email addess you have given is the same one Merkey used to register his domain. And that you post from a Utah IP address despite allegedly being in Texas.


 * In any case, despite the torrent of personal attacks you have made against me, and against many other long-term editors, I have entirely refrained from responding in kind. I guess it's because I know that ultimately you will either start behaving better or be blocked from WP... either event solving the disruption you have created. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Four Cherokee Citizens own that domain, and who registered it and who transferred it to Jeff is none of your business. He uses it for Cherokee business interests.  And for your information, I use an ADSL dialup to our home office on Salt Lake City, and yes, I see Jeff every year or so at the Holiday.   I know about your blowups with Jeff, and he is very remorseful about a lot of his conduct in alienating people needlessly, but it should be clear to you based on my level headed and cool responses to folks, I am as far from Jeff as the Sun from the Moon.  Jeff is a "mad genius" and he has quite a temper.  I have excellent people skills, and on the basis of that fact alone it should be obvious you are dealing with someone else.  I am not Jeff, so please stop calling me Jeff.  Thanks.  Waya sahoni 01:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right. Not just the domain, but the specific email address, you share with Merkey.  And apparently it's named after his grandfather or something, according to research by some other editors.  I guess that leaves first cousins as a possibility (or siblings, or conjoined twins).  ADSL is something distinct from dialup, of course, so it's hard to see what you are technically purporting; but I do know that sometimes multiple hosts are involved in internet connection (my website, for example, is a leased host... I don't even know where the physical server is, since they have multiple centers).  But I guess your comments leave my odds on you being Jeff Merkey at about 85%, rather than pushing it to the higher confidence that most editors at Merkey's page.  Heck, I'll even give you 1/4 odds of being someone distinct from Jeff Merkey.


 * FWIW, like your possibly non-identical relative, you do a poor job of distinguishing other people on Wikipedia. I've never addressed you as "Jeff"; though I see some editors have.  While I can't imagine calling your behavior here "level headed" or "cool" (nor calling Merkey a "genius", of course), there does perhaps seem to be a slight difference in tone.  Certainly both "Gadugi" and "Waya sahoni" show the same odd conspiracy ranting about something called "SCOX" being out to get them, and every editor here being affiliated with that—I'm not really quite sure what that even means: I'm pretty sure you're not referring to the company with that stock symbol, but rather to some sort of discussion site devoted to the goings on of said company. Still, it might be an act after a few months away from Wikipedia.


 * FWIW2: I've never had any "blowups" with Merkey; I'm pretty well indifferent about him, and don't think I've ever even addressed him directly about any matter, even when Gadugi was the username disrupting the Jeff Merkey article. I do know that "remorseful" Jeff has maintained a website containing all sort of literally libelous accusations about me: criminal activity, child molestation, "plagurism" (I enjoy his inability to spell quite a bit, a sign of genius no doubt).  Still, such obvious rantings are hardly likely to damage my reputation; and I'm rather pleased to be in the company of such distinguished "unindicted co-conspirators" (none of whom I've ever met, except one by telephone, who is not mentioned as associated with me; actually, come to think of it, I did meet another one by telephone too). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians
Hi lulu. Just to let you know, if they issued him a tribal card with a roll number, under Federal Law he could apply for eagle feathers, get free medical treatment, and purchase peyote with it. ALl of these activities would be illegal for him. Making statements "its unclear what this means" is total BS. This is what it means. Please do not keep POV pushing in favor of Churchill. I do agree with you I do not think he knew or was intending to do anything like this, and that it was the UKB who went over the line, but please stop spinning it away from the truth. If you want to paint Churchill as a victim of this, I don't really care, but those are the facts. Waya sahoni 07:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a citation for all these facts, it would be OK to include them in the article. But if it's just your original research, we cannot use it.  Specifically, we would need concrete referenced evidence that Churchill was issued a tribal card with a roll number.  FWIW, I don't think the "it is unclear" phrase is very good, but then I didn't write it.  On the other hand, making all kinds of allegations of fraud w/o any evidence is definitely not allowed. As to "POV pushing"... well, everything you are objecting to was written by one of the most strident anti-Churchill ideologues that I've encounted while editing Churchill's article; so it's a pretty darn weird claim to make in this context. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on Lulu, you've been spinning the content about Churchill to make him look better. It' ok, I think I understand your reasons.  Also, good edit in removing that line from the section.  It makes it clearer and spells out that this was not allowed and they revoked them because of it. Waya sahoni 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, put quite simply: I have not done that! I never "spun" any content at the Churchill page to "make him look better".  I have been trying to maintain the page against semi-vandals who want to insert long, un-cited rants against Churchill; and I've been frequently accused of being "pro-Churchill".  But I am not; it's a stupid accusation that I've tried to rise above agreeing to "play along with" (but there's no point in descending to the he-said/she-said stuff that many of these editors desire).  On a few occassions since I've been the informal "guardian" of the Churchill page, I've also taken out overly fawning material about Churchill (self-appointed "guardian" I know, but I wish other non-partisan folks would watch it, and don't feel comfortable leaving it to the self-appointed Fox News spokespeople).  FWIW, I think there are a number of nuanced criticisms of Churchill that would make the articles a lot better, but fighting the completely unnuanced ad hominem and purely vitrioloic attacks has been quite enough work (actually, such attacks against both Churchill as subject matter, and against me myself for editing it in a way that follows WP:NPOV). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lorenz picture
I tried png and gif, but it does not get better in small size! I guess the only way would be to try do scale them down in Adobe and change contrast to get better pictures. And then put links to larger pictures.... I guess I will try to do that... Tó campos 2:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Does the program you use to scale anti-alias during resizing? The thin lines will tend to downsize badly, but a smoothed edge tends to make it do better. The JPG versions, however, had a bit of a fuzzy area around the actual lines... it's dark, so it's hard to distinguish from the black background unless you increase gamma and/or zoom in, but it also messes up the anti-aliasing during scaling.  It might also be worth applying a little bit of edge enhancement in the full sized version which will both look better at full size, and help it scale better. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you need help with resampling images, let me know. It is one of my fortés. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 05:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they look pretty good now: take a look at Butterfly effect and let me know what you think. Better still would be to directly export the points to 175px images, to fit on the page (per my recent down scaling w/ anti-aliasing).  Of course, that would mean modifying the Java code used to make the animation in the first place (or some other code in some other language); that's something I could do, but not something I probably will.  If you think, Jossi, that you can do a better job with scaling Tó campos' images to the desired size than I did, by all means please replace my last versions of the resampled images. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They look pretty good as is... &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

They look pretty good! Can I ask for your contribution in the Lorenz attractor page to do the same with the 4 pictures in the section «Using different values for the Rayleigh number» ? They are all png now and I have used your scheme. But the smaller versions 200px show a lot of aliasing! What kind of program do you use to do this anti-aliasing? (is it a secret that must be kept?... ah ah!) Thanks in advance (I hope it is not too much work!) Tó campos 17:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No secret, certainly. The general idea is just that if you have a line-oriented graphic image (that does not have JPG artifacts; JPG is the wrong format for line-art, charts, etc), using anti-aliasing during reduction can help a lot.  Basically, it just inserts some pixels of a color between the foreground and background in the region around the main angled-lines, which looks smoother but also tends to avoid drop-outs of thin lines, and the most noticable stair-stepping effects.  For the initial conversions on Butterfly effect, I used a program called PMView which is an old OS/2 program that I run on my main desktop machine, and I have had for years (my desktop runs OS/2, although you almost certainly do not).  In that, I believe the option is called "smooth scaling".  Just now I scaled one of the other images from Lorenz attractor using my OSX Powerbook, and a remarkably powerful program that came bundled with it called GraphicConverter.  At a first glance, I think GraphicConverter has done an even better job (though it's a different image in the larger size, so the comparison isn't exact; but I think GraphicConverter is more aggressive in anti-aliasing).  In that, the equivalent option is called "high-quality scaling".  For other programs, you might see the more technical term "anti-aliasing" directly; in fact, high-end programs might have an "aggressiveness" option, or something like that.  I had fiddled a bit before with trying to increase gamma before scaling, to accentuate the color contrast with the black background, but in the end decided to just let the program do it's own algorithm on the full-size version. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a higher resolution version? If you do, you may want to try InkScape (I run it uner OS X, but it run an any platform wihe the Java runtime) to convert to a vector image and upload it as a svg file. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 23:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * All of what I have is the versions that Tó campos uploaded, somewhere like 450-500px wide (I think slightly different size between the images; maybe he captured a screen region slightly inexactly, I'm not sure). SVG would indeed be cool... but I suppose the best way to do that is to write or find an actual program to generate the SVG from the underlying Lorenz equations, rather than improvise from an exported raster image.  Still, either way, I'll check out Inkscape.  It would be nice to have a vector program... though I'm not too unhappy with OpenOffice Draw for my limited needs (and still more limited skill).  I think I should also play with Skencil if I get around to it: I like the fact it's written in Python, and the screenshots and writeup I've read look awfully good (but that's not concrete experience working with it). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the new pictures. They look great. I got the images just using print screen, while my JAVA program was running, and cutting and arranging a little in Adobe. And up to now I only used gif and jpg and had no idea that other formats could be better. I will try to learn a little more about these matters when I will have the time to do it! Thanks for your help and for all the information. Tó campos 14:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I sort of like the article compression artifact to explain why JPG is only useful for continuous tone iamges like photos. Probably mostly because I created the image example :-).  In general, PNG is preferred for all charts, diagrams, graphs, etc. on WP.  GIF's not terrible, but it previously had some patent issues, and it doesn't support deep color depth; so WP urges use of the versatile and very open PNG standard. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You are named in an ARBCOM Proceeding regarding Jeffrey Vernon Merkey Article
See WP:ARBCOM for the details. Waya sahoni 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) Images
Hi Lulu, thanks for your message. I agree with you that it is difficult to ascertain the origin of the pictures. I don't know how to solve that problem. I personally don't think it is terribly unlikely that a BIA affairs photographer would have taken some photos of the BIA agents. If I were a BIA photographer, I'd want photos of my group as well as photos of the other group. This is just my speculation, though. I've got zero proof either way. Johntex\talk 17:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the arbcom request
I don't know how you feel about it, but I would like to see the arbcom request proceed despite the fact that Waya_sahoni withdrew his statement. One arbcom member already voted to accept it. We will only resolve the dispute regarding the article and the allegations of sockpuppetry if the arbcom accepts the request. So please leave a message on the talk page if you feel the same way. Thanks. --BWD(talk) 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cynthia McKinney
I see the revert war with Striver. You should know that he isn't going to stop until you are tired of it and then he'll revert it back to his over sectioned version. See my talk page if you want to talk about it. There are alot of users that think he is the "victim".--Jersey Devil 22:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please give me a hand then by keeping it on your watchlist, and reverting any such destructive changes. If he goes overboard with it, we'll file a 3RR against him to get him blocked (generally just for a day on the first offense, but increasing from there if he repeats such behavior).  Still, lets assume good faith in the meanwhile... maybe he's just a little misguided about article organization. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been dealing with this user for quite some time. I would just suggest that you look at his user contributions. I'll keep an eye on that article aswell. Bye.--Jersey Devil 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You may well be right... but I have enough of my own "problem" users, so I think I'll skip on looking too deeply into other edits he has made, or anything to do with your conflict with him. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters