User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive26

Do you really think that passive voice is warranted considering the weaselly construction that it is? I'm looking at the proposal at ACORN. My comments are those above your last entry.--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

New AN/I report peripherally involving you
You are mentioned peripherally in an AN/I report [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#ACORN_again._This_needs_to_finally_stop. here]. This is a courtesy notice. -- Good Damon 19:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

ACORN

 * Have you been drinking tonight? I haven't advocated the inclusion of one blog there. I've advocated the removal of them.I ahve not advanced one right wing source, just the AP, as reliable sorce as there is. I never claimed a concensus of one. Disagreeing with you about content shouldn't provoke this bizarre . If you would care to clarify your "sound familiar to anyone " comment, I'd love to know where I've ever done the things you have accused me of doing on the ACORN page. If you can't, I will just have to assume that you see this as a partisan issue, and yours are not compatible with improving the article.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been no "soapboxing" here. I made responsible useful edits. Syntacticus (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OVD
I was curious as to if OVD has any ties, officially or unofficially with ACORN. Has the organization received funds from any of the hydra's heads?Die4Dixie (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What is OVD? LotLE × talk  06:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OVC, sorry.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK... nope, no connection between Open Voting Consortium and ACORN. I can't state that no board member or volunteer with OVC has ever met, or cooperated with, or whatever, ACORN members; but the purposes are quite different (though there is a slight and indirect common interest around voting issues). There are no organizational ties, in any case. LotLE × talk 09:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to answer.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ACORN
I am in favor of using the same language, but you objected.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your writing style
Is obviously not 5th grader quality! It wasn't my intent to insult your writing style. Sometimes I type things faster than I can think them through. This always leads to two things: 1) WTF? 2)wrong impressions. Sorry if it came across that way :)  Digital Ninja WTF 05:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I just didn't want you to think I couldn't manage a snarky tone as well as you :-).  LotLE × talk  05:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Touché!  Digital Ninja WTF 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Birth Hospital
There are some reports that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital and some that he was born in Queen's Hospital. How do you reconcile these contradictory reports?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[Pedantic-ass note]
Re: your comments at the Obama article talk page. For what it's worth (nothing!), the first left-handed basketball-playing US president was Gerald Ford. Cheers, an IP editor. Yours in anonymity &mdash; 65.190.95.8 (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama
Hi LotLE. FYI I was in the middle of restoring your edits removing peacock related terms, after my rollback of the Indonesia related edits, when you beat me to the punch. Dr.K. (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I had thought it was an error that you had missed my edits.  But I assumed it was good faith either way.  LotLE × talk  09:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bstone (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI
I responded to your comment at ani, and will allow you the last word now.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you might have missed it
I'm not sure which particular degree mill you got your PhD from, but I'm certain that French isn't one of your strengths, since you've obviously not been able to read any of the seminaires that have not been available in translation yet, where Andre Green is a frequent participant - all of which casts doubt on your self-declared status as a "studied Lacanian scholar". Will you kindly remove yourself from this [] discussion, if only for your manifest lack of competence? Sorry for bursting your bubble (no really ...)

And, come to think of it, maybe you wish to keep quiet on a whole range of other topics as well - windbags are beginning to go out of fashion, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.49.183 (talk • contribs)


 * Odd bit of vitriol copied over by an anon from a six month old thread. Have no idea why it was put here.  LotLE × talk  05:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have blocked this IP for a week if I had seen it on the 22nd but it's gone stale. If this or anything like it happens again drop me a line immediately and I'll look into it-- Cailil   talk 21:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Law stuff
What? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

ACORN
You have made what appear to be not good faith edits (reverts) to the ACORN article. What justification can you possibly have for removing an NPR article, especially given your stated interest in and apparent affection for Marxism? Is NPR not left enough for you? Critics say ACORN's elaborate organization structure is a problem and the NPR article cited merely repeats their criticism. I suggest it be left in. Syntacticus (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, this comment was apparently mistakenly placed on Talk:David Mertz (i.e. on the talk page of an article about me, not on my user talk page). LotLE × talk  23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Syntacticus (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reported you at AN/I. [] Syntacticus (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted the change you made to the Reagan section. There is no need for a Reagan era update. If you know what the total number of chapters is now, that would be appropriate info to insert. Syntacticus (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.  This is the article and section in question: [] Syntacticus (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you reverted yet again, thus brushing up against 3RR. Are you off your meds today? Syntacticus (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama/Drug use
Thanks for having a sense of humor. I apologize for the lolicon comment. I'll be back over that way to make a suggestion for an edit. I am beginning to wonder if the problem is not in the message, but my delivery of it, as I have found that after a lot of heated discussions, several editors do find some validity/reason behind my objections and proposals. I think the " white as milk" and "black as pitch" are gratuitous there. If it bears mentioning, we could simply say that Obama reports that the fact that he didn't find himself particularly impacted as a youth by his multiracial heritage. The rest is hyperbole, that's all. As far as drug abuse/ use, it is all semantics, and not terribly important. Any way, my apologies for the out of line comments (which I'm on the way to strike) and for your sense of humor. We'll see you at the talk page.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the "White as milk/black as pitch" comment has some value to the artilce. It's a slightly literary expression of the fact he had this mixed background... and it then ties in with his finding the multicultural environment of Hawaii beneficial.  However, I agree that there is no particular relation between the colors of his parents and Obama's teenage drug use.  Both parts seem noteworthy, but maybe we could put a paragraph break between them or something so as not to imply a connection that isn't there.  LotLE × talk  08:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. At a bare minimum a separation would do. I think flowery prose doesn't really belong there, but I guess that is a matter of taste. The first point is a mtter of not trying to link to sepatare ideas in a WP:SYNTH issue.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI
This is to let you know that you have been named in a copmlaint at ANI here [].( I'm not the complainer :))Die4Dixie (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested...
...in your thoughts on my thoughts about the lead at Talk:Harvey Milk. I'm generally in favor of concise, readable leads, but when a huge pile of people have spent a lot of time wrangling over the lead at FAC, it might be best to go slow rather than rewriting the whole thing at once. Btw, you seem like a good copyeditor. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We are definitely in agreement about what's desirable for a lead (and probably for articles generally). I do have a habit of jumping into edits with both feet first, which often rubs established editors wrong (as Moni3, in this case).  However, I find that a little bit more radical change is frequently necessary to get to a good result.  Otherwise, sentences tend to gain more and more clauses of equivocation in an effort to please everyone.  What we need is a pretty substantial move towards conciseness in the lead.  FWIW, my edits were quite a bit more conservative than another editor did after my RfC note... I think Yoninah pushed it a little too far in the conciseness direction.
 * Anyway, I'll comment on more detailed points at the article talk... but I think we can move the article (well, lead at this point) to something better pretty quickly with several helpful editors chiming in. LotLE × talk  00:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Moni's suggested rewrite is more concise than the Oct 28 version, so we seem to be headed in the direction of consensus. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem
Bali ultimate seems determined that you and I have a problem. I hope that you have accepted my apology, and understand the WP:POINT I was trying to make in such a clumsy manner.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing about the pornography I might allegedly like? I really could not care less about that joke, I took no offense at it. If I have any disagreement with you, it is strictly about what goes in article space.. there's really just about nothing you might accuse me of (other than bad edits) that I care a whit about. All the best,  LotLE × talk  07:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I eqivocated. I was a dick, and I am sorry. And the disagreement is always about content. :)Die4Dixie (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a COI?
I've raised the issue about any conflict of interest you might have regarding the ACORN article here: [] If you have a COI you should come clean. Syntacticus (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Human Reverts
What you consider "dumb" is not Wikipedia's criterion for removing content. Notable and definitive information about a subject bears inclusion. Please desist from reverting it. --Yano (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Silly jokes are not encyclopedic. At a minimum, the alleged relevance is purely WP:OR.  Leave this nonsense out of the article please.  LotLE × talk  21:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I WP:OUTING
You've been warned yet you persist. I have asked for you to be permanently blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Syntacticus (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for all your work on the same-sex marriage article. It is good to have a lot of the material shortened up and redirected to child pages. This article has gotten messed up a lot of times, and is in better shape now (and reads much more neutrally) than in the past. Thanks again.

74.70.44.210 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tattoo
For the sake of full disclosure, I do have a COI relating to removable tattoos and tattoo ink. I work for Freedom2 and have no shame in admitting my love for this product. Nonetheless, I do not think that an editor at Wikipedia can in good conscience delete a product covered by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Time Magazine. I also find your description of my entry as 'spam' laughable. This product is a revolutionary product and the world deserves to be educated about it.

My entry on henna cited an article from The New England Journal of Medicine that highlighted the dangers of henna tattoos. Given that this section on tattooing requested more primary references, I think this entry meets every qualification as a relevant entry.

As one who has a lot of valuable information to contribute on a variety of subjects, after this experience, I might think twice before doing so.

My repeated attempts to post seemingly only end in frustration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Morello (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok - thank you for the helpful advice - I will try to keep this in mind. pseudopi 02:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Morello (talk • contribs)

Article title
I've responded to your accusation of disruption, here. Moreover, I don't appreciate being falsely accused. Cut it out now, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)