User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive27

Wow
I hereby award you a zOMG for having a ridiculously awesome Wikipedia user name. Thank you. &mdash;Goodtimber (walk/talk) 03:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivility
Your use of the term "vandalism" in an edit summary when you deleted material from the article Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now was clearly incivil and inappropriate. Criticize edits, not editors. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Orangemike, although I do agree that LOTLE should not use such edit summaries, you seem to be taking sides here - I note you've restored edits disputed by several editors, called the deletion "inappropriate", and avoided cautioning the editor singlehandedly edit warring on the other side. That other one has been at the center of several problems here having to do with edit warring, incivility, POV, and possible COI.  If he/she is capable of becoming a productive contributor to Wikipedia, that won't come about either by aggravating to the point of frustration on the one hand, or tolerating their contentious ways on the other.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not taking sides on this one; I just think we have to be civil to everybody, no matter how much we disagree with them; and false accusations of vandalism are serious breaches of civility. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Orangemike, I was just concerned that if you are here in an administrative capacity your impartiality could be questioned, particularly because you did a content revert. But Lulu, I'm going to second Orangemike on this one.  Vandalism is a very specific thing per WP:VANDALISM.  Take a look at WP:VAND - even granting your point about the edits, they are not classified as vandalism.  Maybe they are like vandalism in your estimation, but that is not the same thing.  Moreover, edit summaries are not a useful place to make accusations about other editors.  It tends to inflame things rather than calm them down.  You of all people get called all kinds of things in edit summaries - it never makes you back down does it?  Syntacticus is a tenacious editor, I doubt any good will come of calling him (one assumes) names.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I concede that Syntacticus' edits are not WP:VANDAL, merely WP:TEND. I'll try to point to the correct policy if I need to edit his edits in the future.  LotLE × talk  00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will also note that I've given Syntacticus a stiff warning about NPA. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He/she has not edited since then, except by voting in favor of the proposed arbitration. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which arbitration is that? I note, Lulu, that you have been overruled: []. This is not surprising because your edits were not reasonable. Syntacticus (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ages of children
The ages of the two children should not be in the Barack Obama article. WP:BLP would allow their ages in their own BLPs, but they don't have one because they are only notable through inheritance. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's move this to the Obama talk. I'll make a comment there; we can get other input.  LotLE × talk  21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama approval ratings
No problem on the reversion of my edit, but when do you think would be a good time to start the discussion about approval ratings? I note that George W Bush's, Clinton's and George H.W. Bush's BLP's all have discussion of the approval ratings at the start of their administrations (I quit looking after those three). Newguy34 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe in a year or so, after there is a pattern to such ratings. Even so, I wouldn't want to devote too much space to weekly polls (unless it was biographically notable that approval polls plummeted or skyrocketed).  LotLE × talk  20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ACORN
Asshole: I responded to your unfounded assertions here: []. Syntacticus (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Birth years on Barack Obama
Apologies for making this edit, I didn't think that an issue like this had been discussed. I was thinking of the infobox setup found in most biographies when looking at this article, but as I can't seem to find an actual policy I suppose it's up for debate. Xenocide Talk undefinedContributions 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The actual WP:BLP policy prohibits disclosing birth dates unnecessarily, but not years. There was a fairly long thread on this on the Obama talk page (probably archived now, but someone added a search box for the archives). The discussion was maybe a month ago. The sentiment I expressed, and that a strong majority agreed with, was that the rough ages of Obama's children was relevant to his own biography. I continue to think the article is (slightly) better for having that information in there. LotLE × talk 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to including this information within the article, perhaps under personal life, but it would seem to me that the infobox is, like the introduction, designed to provide vital information on the subject in the quickest possible manner. That is to say, in his infobox it should be noted that he has two children, list their names and be linked to the appropriate article. However, in this setting it seems unnecessary to provide the birth years of his children. Xenocide Talk undefinedContributions  21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the issue I'm having is solely with the infobox. Xenocide Talk undefinedContributions  21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to incorporate the same information into the body of the article, and remove it again from the infobox, I would have no objection to that. However, I think you should mention that you are doing so on the article talk page, since there had been a prior discussion about it (my sense is no one else would object much to that approach, but it's good to be clear). I do think that the age of Obama's daughters is worthwhile to include in some manner; not urgent and central, but significant enough to indicate. LotLE × talk 22:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Python software
I have nominated List of Python software, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of Python software. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Miami33139 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Crews
Hi,

If you've reviewed the page in question, the documentation, and are comfortable with a repeated, blatant puppetmaster with more than 50 sockpuppets adding the information to the page twice, with different sockpuppets, particularly given the lack of a counter-position (for instance found in Crews' reply to the review ), I'm OK with that. When I have the time, I'll read up a bit more on the criticism and rebuttal and see if it needs adjusting. Naturally I'd rather simply remove it, but if an editor in good standing is willing to "vouch for it", I'll take the time to do my due dilligence and rebut rather than removing outright. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence about the sockpuppet behavior? Is there a WP:SSP on this matter, or the like? I have no belief whatsoever on whether your allegation might be true or false. However, the edit that you reverted, in itself looks perfectly reasonable.  If you can explain its flaws on the article talk page, I'm happy to evaluate your argument (and other editors can chime in).  LotLE × talk  22:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The original addition was by one of ResearchEditor's socks. RE has also used one account to add dubious information and a second to contest removals, so there's a pattern.  The first person to add the info to the page was Aurep84, a confirmed sockpuppet as of Feb 16th.  The next day, henry james fan pops in and replaces the information.  Information that pushes the idea that all memories are true, and who also holds firm beliefs about satanic ritual abuse and recovered memory therapy, the very reason RE was blocked in the first place.  Also note HJF's first edits are pretty impressive - including a citation template, and a quote (another RE favourite).  I've been chasing these sockpuppets all across wikipedia, I've filed three sockpuppet investigations since he was permablocked in October.  The results are in the two first links in my original post, Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor, Sockpuppet investigations/ResearchEditor/Archive, so I have no evidence yet except for a very obvious pattern and a posting that arrived immediately after an investigation closed.  I see this as yet more POV-pushing, cheating the system in a blatant violation of policy and the spirit of wikipedia, that places huge undue weight on a narrow interpretation of a vast field (that all abuse is real, that therapy can not induce false memories, that the testimony of children is 100% real, that satanic ritual abuse was not a moral panic and anyone who thinks otherwise is a child molester).  It's possible that this is a valid criticism of Crews, but I think it far more likely that it's part of a laser-like focus to criticize anyone who is not a "believe the children" member.  But I don't mind doing a bit of research first to see what I can find.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems worthwhile to extend the SSP checks to Henry James Fan, if that account is part of the same pattern. That editor indeed has a very short edit history, but obvious knowledge of Wikipedia. I've never seen any of the other accounts you mention, but can certainly sympathize with the enormous disruption that determined socks can cause. I'll defer to you on the addition, given this background; I am not completely convinced that the sentence in a footnote is harmful, but neither do I think it is paticularly important to include. Fighting disruption of sockpuppets takes pretty high weight in my mind.

FWIW, while I have no idea how Crews plays into this whole debate, I have myself published a little bit on the hysteria and nonsense around allegations of satanic ritual abuse and recovered memory therapy. So I am certainly no fan of those belief systems, which you seem to indicate that the banned socks are. LotLE × talk 23:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's entertaining reading to review RE's (formerly known as User:Abuse truth, which should have got an instablock right there) last 100 or so talk page contribs - talk about banging your head against a wall. I'm not going to launch another RFCU a day after the last one, I'll just keep monitoring the pages and wait about a month.  Anyway, I'd like a bit more evidence than one rather well-informed SPA's opinion that this is an important part of Crew's career and fame.  Particularly when that SPA first action is to revert to the version supported by a known sockpuppet.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just fyi...
I enjoyed reading your userpage. kilbad (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What path led you to stumble upon it?  LotLE × talk  01:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I watch Tattoo and saw your sweet name. kilbad (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Kupuaina
Hi Lulu. For some reason I thought this might interest you. If not no worries. It seems to me like the article needs work, and maybe a merge is in order, but the subject strikes me as being highly notable. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Harvey Milk
The article is well within approriate size. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Python lists
Your concern regarding the look of the lists on Python is appreciated. If you have a better alternative, I'd be happy to hear it. I encourage you to keep the peer reviews, which I based my edits off of, in mind. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Peer review can be useful, but it is, after all, just what a few editors happen to think about the article. It's always nice to attract fresh eyes who might not look at a given topic otherwise, but keep your normal editing good sense about you relative to any specific advice.
 * That said, I find the bullets just look ugly in a non-list article, especially with so many and used with such micro-subsections. However, I think in general there is too much in the "this, that, and the other software product/company utilizes Python".  A couple years ago it was a much smaller list of particularly notable organizations.  Over time, a lot of "me too" products crept in (all perfectly good software products, so it's hard to single out some new one as being "less good" than what was there before).  It's reached the point where it's just too much accidental detail; as I say in an edit comment, most or all of that could go to List of Python software, perhaps with some relevant headings added to that list.  Something more generic that indicated "many companies and many software products use Python" should suffice for the actual Python article, IMO.  LotLE × talk  07:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Legacy of Harvey Milk
Hi LotLE: I know it didn't turn out the way you hoped, but I wanted to say I thought your handling of this affair was classy, positive, and helpful. You set a good example; kudos to you. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your comment on the talk page was very helpful.  And ultimately, Harvey Milk is a good article, so no great harm there.  LotLE × talk  20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Tattoo images
I see why they are better next to the relevant text: if there are any spare images available two could fill up the blank space next to the contents box--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR
nominated Barack Obama for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Avi (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mayor Dinkins
[Racist rant redacted] 76.235.45.78 (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (rant was also added later by User:99.138.180.199)
 * I have no idea why this anon posted crap about Dinkins on my talk page. I have not edited any article related to him that would provide even a modicum of connection.  LotLE × talk  05:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sir
Being a renown computer scientist, this fellow computer science/business undergraduate asks you your advice. Which major would you recommend? I love to travel and work with computers. Is there anything you can recommend me? And sorry for posting such a random question. Have a good day! --DarkKunai (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Por favor
Hey Lulu. Could you please remove the accusatory bit from your comment on the Barney Frank talk page? I know the frustration level is high, but let's try to keep it civil. Thanks for your consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that almost every editor who encounters you on talk pages very soon feels you are making personal attacks. It kind of makes me view this request from you with a bit of suspicion.  While I don't particularly want to hurt the feelings of disruptive editors, maintaining the quality of articles (like the Barney Frank one) is of higher importance to me.  LotLE × talk  19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama
Perhaps this edit was an error? I read it too fast the first time too, thinking it was vandalism saying he wasn't born in the US.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some bad editors have been in that sneaky line to try to insinuate the very misunderstanding that you had on a quick reading. In any event, the fact he was born in Hawaii is well addressed under the fold, and is not central enough to go in the lead.  LotLE × talk  23:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeds of confusion
Hey, Lulu. I responded to you directly on the ACORN talk page. Funny thing, reverting an edit of yours is not something I would have guessed I'd be doing, based on the quality of edits I've seen you make in the past. It's enough to make me review my own position a second and third time, but on this occassion, I still think we're both right. No offense was meant by the revert of your edit, and I won't war with you if you revert me — but I am going to push you for more explanation as to what parts of your position I may be misunderstanding. I'll be away for a few hours. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI GAR notice
Pope Benedict XVI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On Reductio ad Hitlerum
Hi, for your information, I got involved in Reductio ad Hitlerum. I reported a GHcool WP:3RR violation on the soapbox-picture. First admin-judgement : "no violation". I asked for a review of this judgement here (or [ for sure). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And he was steering for it, clearly (I understand you read my responses on the 3RR-judgement). First, the bad news is: it will get worse a lot, before any improvement. I have the impression that on Wikipedia, all Israel-related pages are sub anystandard through this agenda-driven pro-Israel lobbyism. There could be a template for it. These pages are unusable for any paper I'd write on a subject (not so with other subjects. Not these problems with the controversion on say pages on evolution and abortion: they've evolved into well-written, readable and serious pages. Must have cost a lot of editors-energy, which makes the result even greater. With my bit of research knowledge I can sense, read, detect any unsecure parts in these out-of-my-area pages, and do some extra research myself outside of Wiki. Great working! Not so for the Israel-related pages.) Not just the RaH-page, not just a GHcool with a cooperating companion by chance. All pages, and a lot of editors, all with the same agenda. It is organised. A secret part was revealed in 2008, the CAMERA#Wikipedia campaign. Some "coordination" is openly written here. Some campaigns are visible in the butt at WikiProject Israel, e.g. this one you'll recognise, or Please comment [here] on preferred usage in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria area, to determine consensus by July 13th 2009 ("consesus" is the code there for "comments/votes/consensus" -- by pro-Israel-editors).
 * It looks like GHcool has been tag-teaming with Historicist to insert the same nonsense content. Historicist is new here, but GHcool has been trying for many months to subvert the article into the same Israeli boosterism that is irrelevant to the topic.  My hunch is that GHcool did something to recruit Historicist over to RaH, but it could be a coincidence of two similar agenda-driven editors.  The result is that GHcool really has (so far) stuck just under 3RR this time.  I've been keeping an eye on the article for a number of months; I think if a couple other editors like you keep an eye against future shenanigans, we can nip such stuff in the bud.  LotLE × talk  03:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh, he got me.


 * After the bad news, the ugly one. I don't think GHcool is worth constant following (allthough I am free to start a revert+talk in any edit I think is wrong), but not a user-conduct RfC. It's too much negative energy, and he's skirting inside of the AGF-concept (rules) allways. See how a transgressing user like User:Mashkin gets away with a 3RR block once a month.


 * Third, after the bad and ugly news, the good. If not sitting on their tail, what can one do? Strangely enough, in the long run the solution and the fun is in assuming good faith. I can't say it's always my first thought, but the most experienced editors (and administators) keep pointing that direction: start the talking, don't get distracted, learn and recognise the tricks used. remember, huge numbers of editors work this way. And if nothing works for the moment, then leave the much-needed template "Page in bad condition due to pro-Israel lobbying" and skip the topic for a while, create some nice things elsewhere, make you feel better. -DePiep (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, just read your homepage, it is all about AGF (or not) already. Well, I copied my reaction above and started an WP:Essay in my userspace: OAPIE's. These creepy subjects keep coming back, so I make it reusable. (Warning: possibly paternalistic remark ahead: If you like to follow the development, you're invited to put a watch on it). -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please revert the section-deleting! It was great, including the change "allegations" into "examples". Putting it all together is very distressing. Makes it difficult for me to follow. I thought it was getting great. -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly. What the ideologues are trying to smuggle in is very specifically the section heading.  The effect is to characterize a whole area as "Anything mentioning X and Hitler" is an example of the fallacy, no matter how thin the section is.  There should almost never be a WP section for one short paragraph, and especially not in this case.  By removing the superfluous headings, we treat the various allegations of a piece: indeed in these several cases, someone or another alleged the fallacy was being committed.  But there is nothing that special about one category of example.  Moreover, without the needless headings, we could locate other examples from entirely different areas, and include them without making a garish heading for, say, "Comparisons of Volkswagon drivers to Nazis".  LotLE × talk  01:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you got it, you understand the subliminal line: this Volkswagen-Nazi thing should be in, it should be said at last. Let's not forget the Toyotas. ;-) Thank you for making me laugh out loud and long.
 * Most seriously: you're right, especially since I get the background you describe ("Anything...X...Hitler"), and like here. What you write on sections and word-wrestling-editing I understand too. I'm sorry for bothering you halfway the proces (while promising to stay away). But I dearly needed a good argument, and got a great laugh extra. -DePiep (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually meant the Volkswagon example just a little bit seriously, though I'm glad you also appreciated the humor there. You've probably heard the trope that "Nazis developed the Volkswagon"... with various presumed implications of that.  The basic fact is a little bit true, but drawing much any conclusion from this history is obviously silly.  Still, it is not outside the realm of possibility that someone will find some cited example of this Volkswagon/Nazi connection used in a way that is (or is accused of being) a RaH.  LotLE × talk  08:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing study
Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Alain de Botton
Hi Lulu, following on from your comments, I've modified my original post to the Alain de Botton entry with a link to a Daily Telegraph article where de Botton talks about the comments he left on Caleb Crain's website. I'm not entirely sure about the etiquette regarding undos, etc, but I thought your comment was a bit flippant: "Rm absurdly irrelevant section (someone posting on comments to a blog claims to be de Botton ?!)." On the basis that this story has been reported by a number of newspapers recently, I believe it deserves a place in de Botton's Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Johnson (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your insertion (even assuming it is factually accurate) is mind-boggling non-encyclopedic. Let's assume that de Botton indeed once had a very brief, snippy exchange on a blog.  Is that really relevant to his notability and the course of his career?! It has about the same chance of being relevant as does, say, my own snippy edit comment to my biography on WP.  Wikipedia is really, really not WP:TRIVIA. Just because some random, and rather uninteresting, fact might be true, doesn't suddenly propel it to biographical importance.  LotLE × talk  21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to think you are not even being serious in this. Whether it's because you have something against de Botton or are just trying to make some poor joke, I don't know.  In either case, don't do it!  LotLE × talk  21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lulu, when I read the news story recently I wanted more information about the matter and saw that de Botton's Wikipedia didn't have any information about this exchange. Doctor Johnson —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

Wikiproject Body Modification
WikiProject Body Modification is starting to be created if you're still interested. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Reducio ad hitlerum
Please discuss on the talk page how the state sponsored anti-smoking campaign was founded by the Nazi's, and its irrelevance to current day state sponsored anti-smoking campaigns. I think sugar is an un-contraversial example, unless the the article is going to investigate the way in which the term is used to delegitamate comparasons.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss on the talk page- at the moment it is unopposed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss your destructive edits on the talk page, before making them.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD
Please read this. 1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.) 2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person. 3. DISCUSS the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise. Apply the compromise by editing the page, after which the cycle repeats. When people start regularly making non-revert edits again, you are done.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I made an edit, and started a discussion on the talk page - you reverted it twice, without using the talk page, and directed me to this information.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given "that words do not mirror the world. Words also do not resemble things (besides other words); words do not picture the world; words do not describe the world; words do not refer to the world. Words have none of the mystical properties philosophically (and commonly) ascribed to them, of standing in some special, but always murky, relationship to other things. Words simply are events in the world. Whatever regularity governs them is the regularity of a fully material world." why the objection to sugar?93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk Pages
Please engage in discussion when making repeated controversial edits, such as those to Reductio ad Hitlerum. This helps to establish consensus. I would also be grateful if you would abstain from making accusations against me, particularly since other editors seem to agree with me - Talk:Reductio ad Hitlerum.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re (cur) (prev) 00:55, 28 July 2009 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs) (17,401 bytes) (the blockquote is WP:UNDUE, as has been discussed numerous times. The abbreviated quote more than gives the sense of the Gordon/Silow-Carrow kurfuffle) (undo)

Please discuss this on the talk page, in the Olivier Razac section. I have read all the discussion, and there is no discussion of the selection of the quote.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you:)93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex Martelli
I have no absolute 100% proof that it's the same guy, and also no axe to grind to make him look bad. But when I semi-randomly happened came across the article Alex Martelli, it struck me as a very unlikely coincidence if it's not the same guy. And it's not like I dredged up one or two obscure and irrelevant forum postings -- Alex Martelli was actually a semi-prominent online personality of the first half of the 1990's, who made many dozens of postings to "alt.sex.bondage" and related groups (hundreds of postings if those of his wife, or made in conjunction with his wife, are included), and is remembered fondly by many former readers of the group (which explains why there are still a number of Laylah Martelli archives out there 15 years later). If the article alt.sex.bondage were reasonably comprehensive, then Alex & Laylah would almost certainly be mentioned on that article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From what you indicate though, there does not seem to be any suggestion that this activity has any relevance to his WP notability though (even if it does happen to be the same person). Absent some argument that it does, I'm going to redact the comment before too long.  I do not find the association derogatory myself, but there are many readers who might; unless this is material that might potentially be incorporated, it isn't relevant to the talk page, in any case.  LotLE × talk  07:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever, dude -- I'm not going to revert you, but I find it rather peculiar (verging on the actively bizarre) that your action seems to be based almost exclusively on your complete and utter ignorance of the subject matter in question (while most people who had at least some minimal knowledge in the area would have been likely to arrive at a different conclusion). AnonMoos (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually know quite a bit more about all the subject matters in question than you suspect (I'd be happy to communicate more off-channel, if you care). What I know even more about than that is the WP:BLP policy, which is pretty clear about "if in doubt, redact".  Since some big issues in 2005-2006, BLP pretty much trumps all other policy (for better or worse), and I just have not seen even any claim from you that the material you mention has any plausibility of incorporation into the article.  LotLE × talk  23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, if we're not even allowed to ask honest questions on article discussion pages, then I don't know how such matters can ever be settled through reasonable open discussion (as opposed to some kind of back-alley furtive communications channel that you seem to be advocating). In any case, "Laylah Martelli" gets over 500 Google hits, and is mentioned in a quasi-official newsgroup FAQ ( http://www.faqs.org/faqs/soc-subculture/bondage-faq/part4/ ), so I'm not as convinced as you are that this has no possible relationship to improving the article page... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sort of running out of breath writing the same thing over and over: you have not made any argument that (1) it really is the same person (as opposed to "might be"); (2) the material might someday make it to the article. If you had done these things, I would not want to redact the potentially derogatory information.  But all you've argued is that it is "interesting", not that it's notable (for the Alex Martelli article, that is, the material you mention might well be relevant to some other article, which would be reasonable to propose/suggest).  LotLE × talk  07:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidental coincidental


Hey, did you know that you and I happened to have created our Wikipedia accounts on the exact same day of the exact same year? :D Wheee! Separated at birth, mayhap?

In fact, you are three hours and two minutes my senior, so I'll defer to your wisdom. At least, once I understand it, and if my interpretation of Wikipolicy allows it. :) Anyway, enough silliness.. for now. -Silence (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, twins! Do you think we are fraternal or monozygotic? Do you have a birthmark in the shape of an hourglass on your left leg, to match mine? (with the sands transferring as we age). LotLE × talk  22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Btw, as much as I find your railing against the lead image on Human merely "wacky", you convinced me about the Barack redirect, as I state on its talk page. You made a genuine and understandable argument, and that made me reevaluate my initial thought about it (i.e. the convenient template for multiple DAB links).  LotLE × talk  22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that we're fraternal twins, just based on your user-page image. :) But I suppose anything's possible!
 * And, thanks! Yes, the Barack issue was much simpler and less thorny than the mess at Human, since it only touches on matters pragmatic (unless one of us happened to be an irate Hungarian brandy connoisseur ;)), not on sensitive notions of self-identity which could trouble the waters of any discussion. However, I'm hopeful that we can still sort through the relevant (and not-so-relevant) arguments and reach an adequate compromise.
 * If my arguments seem "wacky", it may partly be because I am trying to make a special effort to represent a perspective wholly missing from our Talk:Human dicsussions&mdash;the perspective of a female editor or reader, who might be quite surprised to find her primary sex characteristic denigrated, dismissed, and censored in spite of Wikipedia policy to the contrary. If the Pioneer image had the male looking like the picture on the right, while the female was the one with uncensored genitalia, I don't think editors would be so quick to dismiss the issues of neutrality and anatomical accuracy involved.
 * However, I feel that this issue is easily remedied, and even if doing so does stir up other, unrelated controversies, at least we will be able to rest easy in knowing that a clear-cut problem has been replaced with much more debatably, ambiguously problematic options. :) -Silence (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, it seems fraternal twins indeed. Pretty much the whole of your "Background and beliefs" blurb on your user page is equally true of me.
 * FWIW2, if the image you present above of a non-genitalia male had been included on the Pioneer plaque, I would have no objection to using it on the Human article. There are quite a few portrayals like that that erase male genitals, mostly in cartoons and the like.  Actually, I saw a funny talk locally (LA) about someone who worked in the film industry specializing in the digital removal of genitals from films (or even of things that might hint of them without being them).  Add a "digital shadow" in just the right place, and so on.  Your modified image still shows the body plan of humans compared to other animals... but of course your modification is your own work and lacks the historical/cultural value of the Pioneer version, so I wouldn't support the modified version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs)


 * I thought you might say that, but from my experience you'd be the exception. Trust me, whereas the current Pioneer image gets a complaint about the missing vulva from our predominantly male viewership on occasion, if it were the penis missing&mdash;particularly if the vulva were not also censored&mdash;we'd be getting dozens of complaints every single day from viewers objecting to this blatant censorship of male anatomy. Partly that is because the penis is simply a larger organ viewed externally (in addition to being more familiar to most of our readers), but it is equally because viewers are much more used to seeing nude females with censored or otherwise obscured genitalia, whereas nude males with blank white spots where there genitalia should be are (while, as you note, not wholly unheard of) comparatively rare, owing to the greater social taboo associated in our culture with female than male genitalia (cf. the stronger reactions you'll get from saying "vagina" than from saying "penis", and how often you hear the two words on the airwaves&mdash;or, heck, how often you'll see one versus the other on HBO shows :P). Whereas our current editors see nothing wrong with dismissing the primary sex characteristic of females as a "beaver shot", you'd have a much more nuanced and balanced debate (if not an outright tidal wave of pro-penile support) if the censorship were reversed. This is just a reality of how our culture handles the issue, and it is one of the reasons we're better off with a photograph (which, barring digital manipulation and the like, can't misrepresent a human) than with any one particular culture's impression of what humans "should" look like. -Silence (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you seem to have inadvertently deleted seven months of Talk:Human's archives back in 2008&mdash;most of the discussions for that whole year, spanning everything from May through November. (This happened to include our entire previous lead image discussion, which has had the unfortunate side-effect of slowing down down the recent discussion and forcing a lot more rehashing.) After several hours of sifting through changes in the history, I've restored the deleted archives at Talk:Human/Archive_27. Lemme know if you notice anything still missing. -Silence (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes! I'm so sorry if that is true. I'm certain that if I deleted a block, it was with the intention of moving it to an archive.  However, it is quite likely that I was fallible in 2008 (but surely not in 2009 :-)), and apologies if I messed up old discussions.  Thanks for fixing things.  LotLE × talk  09:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis all cool, I'm just glad you fixed MiszaBot before she did more. My guess is that either you planned to recover the whole archives but got distracted partway through (Wikipedia is full of distractions!), or you simply didn't notice how much Misza had deleted &mdash; I see that you restored the last sections sent to /dev/null/ by Misza, but the most significant deletions occurred in the first attempted bot-move, since that was the one which wiped out the accumulated backlog. In any case, all should be well now. :] -Silence (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks and false statements
These are blockable offenses. The content I added to the Barney Frank article is very very close to the source and is entirely reasonable and appropriate. It could be expanded. Stop abusing your editing privileges. The next personal attack and false statement you make against me I will have no choice but to report your disgusting behavior and abuse to administrators. You are way out of line. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
These edits improved the article by removing marginal issues. My excuse is the typical one that I did not have the time to write concisely :-) In reality, I did not find all those refs in one go. Pcap ping  20:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mystylplx (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you referring to? I did make an edit that accidentally put in one bit of prior vandalism while taking out a different one. So you may have meant that.  But look at the edit history, I fixed it right after I saw that's what happened.  It's hard to keep pace with the puerile vandals at the ACORN article, unfortunately.  LotLE × talk  21:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. You requested semi-prot 3 minutes after I did. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah... I saw that. I actually started... oh, maybe 3 minutes earlier, but had an edit conflict trying to save mine. I just combined the two requests (I use slightly different phrasing to describe the request, but either one is fine).  LotLE × talk  17:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Your edit comment: "this is obviously more appropriate in section where it was before ranting anon moved it"
Can you please clarify why you have felt the need for such an uncivil comment? What about my good faith edit has led you to slander it as a rant? 99.141.246.60 (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, the article has now been semi-protected to prevent anonymous trolls from further degrading the article. LotLE × talk  19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What relevance does this have to my edit, or the question I've asked regarding your edit and edit comment?99.141.246.60 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think your one edit wasn't so bad. A whole lot of anons made a whole lot of really bad changes in the last couple days that I removed more-or-less en bloc.  The choice of what section to place the video discussion in is good faith (although still the wrong judgment).  Nonetheless, semi-protection is desperately needed on that article, and fortunately now in place.  LotLE × talk  19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it was the wrong judgement and I do not recognize your claim to be in any position to make such an absolute imperial finding. I also disagree with your philosophy of force expressed on your user page and translated into action here in this encounter among equals, "Democracy must be imposed with an iron fist."
 * Your lack of concern about others while imposing your will upon them reminds me of this:


 * "A democracy, the realistic observer is forced to conclude, is likely to be idealistic in its feelings about itself, but imperialistic about its practice."


 * 99.141.246.60 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: "We've discussed this bit of gossip sheet slander dozens of time... go away"
If you wish to expand on the section discussing her prose with contrary points which have also been published in other peer-reviewed academic journals, as per WP:RS then by all means do so. However, this is not "gossip" sheet slander. It cannot be arbitrarily removed. And it also concerns important rejoiners published by Butler, in the New York Times of all places. Avaya1 (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This exact text has been rejected by consensus discussion many, many times. It is not going in this article.  If you want to rant and rave, get yourself an "I hate Butler" blog, and put the stuff there.  LotLE × talk  19:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about Butler one way or the other, and as an editor, neither should you. I actually like her work. You seem unfamiliar with wikipedia guidelines:  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."  If you wish to add alternative arguments to the discussion, then that's fine, but you'll need to expand the section, from equally reliable sources (preferably like the prestigious academic journals cited so far).  Avaya1 (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Having examined the talk page, it appears that the consensus/majority opinion of wikipedia editors there clearly support its inclusion. Avaya1 (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The main policies that you should acquaint yourself with are WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. LotLE × talk  20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're discussing her critical reception, then this is an issue of great weight and relevance, hence it's inclusion in the first chapter of Routledge's introduction to Butler. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Eb7WiUfQ9AoC&pg=PA12&dq=the+politics+of+style+butler#v=onepage&q=the%20politics%20of%20style%20butler&f=false  Avaya1 (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a report on your edits at 3RR/N
here -- Noroton (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Second report filed here -- Noroton (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility
User:Noroton has brought to my attention a number of your edit summaries and he is concerned that they add up to an ongoing pattern of incivility. I don't know if there is a preexisting conflict between you and I don't wish to take sides if there is, but the examples involve other editors as well. Honestly, none of them are particularly egregious, and I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't say I'd left plenty of exasperated edit summaries in my time. However, I feel obligated to ask that perhaps you be a little less blunt with other users and Noroton in particular. It is in the best interests of the encyclopedia if established editors like you and he get along and play nice. Gamaliel (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have indeed encountered Noroton before. He is one of the bunch of editors who earned themselves a topic ban from Obama-related articles.  Arguably, his contributions to ACORN are in violation of this (though I don't recall the duration of his ban, there was some enormously convoluted ruling by Arbcom, that meted out a variety of bans and blocks of different lengths, and tooks months to unfold).
 * It is also true that I have become very flustered by the influx of dozens of anonymous editors to an article I have helped maintain, with not a one of them making a useful edit, and the range going from outright vandalism to blatant policy violation (but nothing better than that "good" end). That said, I appreciate your admonishment, and will endeavor to keep my edit comments above the fray.  Thanks.  LotLE × talk  03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're misremembering. I was never topic banned. Good to see you'll endeavor. -- Noroton (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)