User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive28

ChildofMidnight back at ArbCom
You are mentioned (implicitly) here. PhGustaf (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Orwell references do nothing but irritate people.--Tznkai (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're probably right about the Orwell thing. I should watch that.  I really don't mean it as anything WP:POINTy, it's just that the phrase got stuck in my head, without any real reference to its source (not just on WP, but I've been using the "double plus ungood" adjective in various other places too).  I can't redact my edit comment (it's not in my comment itself, right?), but I'll try to avoid that particular trope.  LotLE × talk  07:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks. Its just a pet peeve of mine after many MANY arbitration and admin related discussions.--Tznkai (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Per your comment: I realize the organization has "attempted" to endorse other candidates, but could never reach consensus until Obama's candidacy. Of course I could be wildly incorrect on this detail...  can you give me a bit more information? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me look around for citations. I'm pretty certain they have endorsed a variety of local candidates in lots of places.  Not presidential candidates, but stuff like city councils, state representatives, probably some Congresscritters, etc.  LotLE × talk  19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see several endorsements at the community level for candidates running for city council, supervisor, mayor, etc. I've modified my comment to specify "presidential" candidate, since I still believe Obama is the only one to receive an ACORN endorsement.  I'm pretty convinced CoM is referring to national endorsements when complaining about ACORN's "partisanship", and probably isn't too concerned with their endorsements for mayor of Cowpie, MN.  All that aside, the main argument against Law, already made by others, is that his claim that ACORN & Obama are completely unrelated is absurd (to anyone not living in a cave). My observation was that an editor banned from Obama stuff went to an article about an organization that endorsed Obama, and made complaints about their endorsements.  Just a small pebble added to what was already an avalanche. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Squicks
Please review this and this, making edits where you see fit. -MBHiii (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikistalking like this is rather bad form, but I see that it's an inherent pattern of yours (such as your use of sockpuppets to game articles). The Squicks (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I will avoid getting involved in a dispute I don't really understand, on articles I have not edited. Just because I interacted with Squicks recently doesn't mean I want to get involved in all the articles s/he edits on, which seems to be your suggestion in the diffs. LotLE × talk 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw. It seems like somewhere other than my user talk page would be more appropriate for discussion of these editing matters that I have no involvement in. LotLE × talk 17:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Saw yuor name, thought I'd say hello. I like seeing your comments around the place, they are calming. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi JzG: I recognize your username, and am pretty sure I've edited some article(s) in common with you. I don't remember what now though; do you know?  LotLE × talk  20:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion re. ACORN
Hi, a friendly suggestion here. Regarding this edit you might want to use a more diplomatic edit summary. There's nothing wrong at all with the summary you wrote, but it seems a little confrontational. Even I braced myself when I saw the summary, assuming you were going to be deleting stuff and maybe people would start edit warring. But then the edit itself is strong, and improves the article - you've just removed some fluff. I've been trying the same to keep the section from bloating. So maybe a spoonful of sugar? Something like "Shorten section by getting rid of less important or obvious facts" or something like that. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will endeavor for greater sweetness. LotLE × talk  04:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Reverted 1 edit by 98.215.178.14; Tutorial example is inappropriate for encyclopedia."
How so?


 * Pretty much exactly as the edit comment states. An encyclopedia entry on a PL is a general overview of the language, not a "how to" on concretely using it.  This is generally the case of all the other PL articles, though Python is the one I actually monitor closely.  The topic of introducing tutorial and code sample material has been discussed many, many times on the talk page of the article, and always correctly rejected.  Not sure what else to tell you; the sample program would be perfectly good for some other fora, but it just ain't right for WP.  LotLE × talk  01:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. the policy page that best describes this is WP:NOTHOWTO. LotLE × talk  01:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But WTF...
OK, I agree that the new way of doing it is correct. But please don't flood with loads of small changes. And also please check what you are doing works before saving. I'm gonna overwrite all your changes with the ones I did the last 30 minutes, because they work and look better. I told you I was working on it, and to cool down. Why don't you LISTEN!?! --OpenFuture (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mess things up again!! I spent enough work that I really don't need malicious interference. If you want to help convert the notes, great. If you just want to do random reverts, DO NOT!  LotLE × talk  08:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not mess anything up. I reverted your moronic mess with all the blank lines. Now I've made the references clear an pretty. Don't you dare F that up, and start inserting loads of blank lines again. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Blank lines?! LotLE × talk 08:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've told you over and over and over, but you don't listen. Your previous edits inserted loads of blank lines. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And you know there is a preview function, right? So you don't have to make messed up edits, and then fix them up all the time, as you do now. That way you can fix more than half a reference per edit. You can in fact make several references per save. So you don't flood the changelog with ittybitty changes, as you do now? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid to do more than one or two at a time because I don't know what random revert you'll stick in the middle. Anyway, changelogs are cheap.  If you understand diff storage, you'll know that it uses no extra resources. (This after your prior tirade that I changed too much in edits!).  Why don't you grow up a little and work on something else while I fix the references?  LotLE × talk  08:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Look:
 * * I'm not the one starting to editing a page after been told by others that they are fixing it. It's you, in fact, who reverted and started editing even though I told you I was working on it.
 * * I am working on something else, and currently waiting for you to be finished with the moves, so I can fix up your formatting. I have made no changes since the save I did to show you some readable, IMO good formatting. Which you of course didn't follow, but that's up to you, I can't force you to format properly.
 * * I have done no random reverts whatsoever. I only reverted the changes you did when your edits messed things up by adding loads of blank lines.
 * * I have no idea why you are talking about resources, I'm not talking about resources, I just think you shouldn't flood the change list with loads of small edits, because it makes it hard to follow. Especially since half of those edits are changes you have to do to fix your own mess, since you didn't do a preview.
 * * I also notice that you once again go on with the personal attacks.
 * --OpenFuture (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, in reality you never "told me you are fixing it". Your belligerent comments and non-constructive reverts witness exactly the opposite. I have no idea how you got this obnoxious bug in your craw, but it's been a real nightmare trying to work this out with you... for absolutely no reason. We don't disagree about content, and we seem to have reached a good compromise (and improvement even) on the technical layout).

That said... I'm going to sleep now. I've fixed the majority of the refs, but feel free to move the rest to bottom while I dream of other things. I will say that the way you've formatted refs in the bottom section looks nice. A little more with the indenting and stuff than I'd do, but that's fine. I did some like that, but others I just copied down in unformatted form. Feel free to tweak that as you think best.

Good night, and best wishes. LotLE × talk 09:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I told you I was doing it "The Right Way". But you don't listen. And although you now seem to understand that you end up inserting bank lines (as you now remove them again) you still do not apologize for your attacks or even acknowledge that you did insert blank lines. I'm not sure I can be bothered to fix your formatting, people like you really turn me off the idea of helping out. It just seems like a waste of time. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to make actual improvements to the article, I'll do it in the morning... or someone else will do it. It's true I would like an apology for your nonsense reverts and belligerent posts here on my talk page... but I'll happily settle for non-destructive edits by you. LotLE × talk  09:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazing. *You* ask for an apology. Completely astounding. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's it.
Now I'm angry. I have not threatened anything, least of all to mess anything up. Your behavior is totally inexcusable with accusations left and right, and reverting changes without listening to explanations. You need to coo l down, and first of all apologize. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Of plaques and prolixity
Hi Lulu. I just wanted to say that two months ago I would have agreed with you completely on the lead image at Human. I found Silence's dissertation-length posts maddening, and my eyes frequently started to glaze over before I'd gotten past the second or third paragraph. At some point (maybe when it veered onto my talk page—I don't remember) I decided to actually consider what he was saying, point by point, and I found something interesting. Buried within the mountains of prose I discovered a little bit of bullshit and a lot of tortured logic but also, to my surprise, some arguments that were well reasoned, policy-based, and pretty close to irrefutable. I still liked the Pioneer image, both because of its provenance and various connotations and because it seemed stable and less drama-inducing, but I dropped my (once vehement) opposition to its removal because I could no longer justify its presence in the taxobox based on my reading of policies. If you ever have lots of time and even more patience, the discussions here and here are telling. Bottom line for me: Silence doesn't know how to be brief, and he definitely repeats himself, but that doesn't mean he isn't right. Rivertorch (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've said, I don't think the Akha image is bad by any means. However, I really did not ever see any policy argument against Pioneer.  Lots of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, sure, but no policy.  The torturous misreading of WP:CENSORED was pretty painful to watch, and I didn't see anything closer to an actual argument.
 * Can you state in, say, one-word what policy you think is relevant? LotLE × talk  20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in one word, no. I'm doing forty different things at once right now, most of them off-wiki, but I'll get back to you soon with something succinct. Rivertorch (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, here's my thinking in three paragraphs, none of them hideously long:

First, the anatomical omission in the plaque was self-censorship, and by using it to illustrate Human we are violating the spirit of WP:ISNOT and perhaps, if the reason for the self-censorship can in any way be traced to patriarchal Western traditions of morality, WP:NPOV. (The latter point is iffy, no doubt, but I try to keep the existence of such biases in mind around here.)

It is arguably unencyclopedic to use a deliberately inaccurate lead image; further down on the page it would be fine, but a lead image should accurately depict the subject of an article. Anything else—any stylizing or simplifying—is potentially misleading unless the image bears a caption noting its inaccuracy. Although WP:NPOV deals with text, not images, the concept is similar: Sagan made the equivalent of a biased statement by expunging that fateful line, and we're presenting it out of context, thereby not showing the bias.

At its core, Human is a biology article dealing with a species; it has a taxobox, and the contents of that taxobox should be analogous to those for other species. There may be exceptions, but Human is the only one I've found without a photo. That inconsistency arguably violates the spirit of WP:NPOV. Policy aside, it's a bit ridiculous: pig and duck have a domestic sow and bufflehead, respectively, not Porky and Daffy, and why should this be any different? Rivertorch (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Perspective
The explanatory comments at Articles for deletion/Joshua Greenberg were useful for me.

Pondering the array of views in this thread helped me to step back only slightly; but even small movements do evoke a changed perspective, a new appreciation of our focal point. --Tenmei (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the AfD thread resulted in an improved article. Let me take this opportunity to acknowledge your contribution specifically.  Your pointed comments helped me to develop a broader perspective. My imperfect understanding of what WP:Notability and WP:PROF require may need further tweaking in future; but this was a constructive step towards something better.  Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know
Just so you know, 3RR says that I could have made another reversion and still not violated 3RR... 3RR goes into effect on the 4th edit in a 24 hour period. Not the third one, also in order for action to be taken there has to be a warning posted, thus your evidence is wrong. Also it makes no sense for a user to mysteriously create socks after only 2 edits as I could have easily made a third one---especially when that person has gone to the talk pages to discuss the issue. Sheesh... guess after 3+ years/20,000+ manual edits on this board one person would HAVE to accuse me of sock puppetry... and people wonder why I've retired.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know II
You're being discussed here: 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently I am being discussed there as well, but no such courtesy was afforded me. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the anonymous socks are pretty free ranging in the topics they touch on in the random ANI blather. I rather wonder exactly who 64- is.  It is evident that it is some editor that I have encountered many times over the years, given its familiarity with various edit questions spanning that time.  Whether it is an editor who is otherwise blocked or banned, I am not quite sure (I have some hunches, but mostly I've forgotten most of the dozens of blocked editors who have pushed various partisanship on pages I've edited).  LotLE × talk  22:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a non-punitive solution at WP:ANI. Please review and comment. Thanks .... 71.57.8.103 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like it would be a good thing if you would join your drawer-mate 64.208.230.145 in creating (and sticking) to a named account for your edits rather than trying to hide behind however many IPs you edit under.  FWIW, it also might be worth looking up the term "non-punitive", since you seem to have mistaken its meaning.  Maybe even go make a constructive edit somewhere in article space to round out the whole "positive direction" theme on ANI.  LotLE × talk  05:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors in good standing with thousands of quality edits to our name, and we're the ones getting shit on by a couple of anonymous SPA-like IPs. I've been minding my own business for months, and then this "64" decides to call me an "attack dog" at WP:ANI. Anonymous liars don't deserve courtesy or apologies from us. Ignore 71's ludicrous nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

python software
Hi, and thanks for the note. I understand that the python page focuses on the core of the language and its implementation, but it would be useful to include a link to the libraries I mentionned or to the use of python in science. In particular, Numpy is almost standard library now, and python would not be used in science + engineering without it. What do you thing? A phrase in the chapter "uses"? cheers, Meduz (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to a brief (i.e. one sentence) mention of NumPy in the main Python (programming language) article. It definitely shouldn't have a whole section or any long description.  That's what a wikilink is for, since Numpy has its own article.  LotLE × talk  21:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of using nazi sources
LotLE, I’m astounded by your repeated claim that I quote a nazi source at Talk:Anti-Defamation League, although I have explained the true situation. I’m not able to find a way of interpreting your behavior as good faith, but in case I have missed something, I would like to hear an explanation. I don’t want to let unnecessary hostility destroy the discussion if there is a possibility to see things from an other side, but I “suffer fools poorly, and just am not able to assume good faith when it is self-evidently absent”, as you say on your user page, and I agree that we should “not treat bad-faith engagement as if it were in good-faith solely to preserve a superficial cordiality. It is not OK to lie outright, nor to fixatedly cling to your own ignorance”. I hope your motive is more innocent than it looks like; if so, we could avoid an ANI–request. --Jonund (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to bring up the matter on ANI if you find that useful. I will continue not to believe that a neo-Nazi website meets WP:RS, as I have explained in detail on the article talk page.  LotLE × talk  21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know III
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

 Grsz 11  19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A tricky question of “myth”
Hi Lulu,

I am getting in contact with you after noting your contribution to the neutral point of view policy article and have done this due to an issue that I’ve raised in the talk page of another article that may require outside help to resolve.

The discussion has now stretched way beyond 10,000 words (with me providing more than my share) and that has made its way past a third courtesy break. I guess it all depends whether the following issue is one, time permitting, with which you would like to become involved.

I’ve raised issue regarding the title of the article “Creation myth” after seeing the talk page notice which claimed: The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy... . I did not think that this was the case and began the related discussion. It’s got quite a charged on both sides at times and, amongst other things, I’ve taken the view that some of the editors may want to bring the issue to a swift conclusion. A full review of all the issues mentioned would be appreciated but, not knowing when you may see this message or which other editors may have taken an interest in this topic, it may be worthwhile to make an initial check of the current state of the discussion so as to check the current state of the debate.

I do not personally hold any religious faith and yet considered the neutrality issues that I perceived to have been raised by the article title to be worth tackling, I realise that this is an issue that I have personally raised and, finally, I don’t have any expectation of outside involvement and just mention this in case this issue may also be of interest for you.

regards Gregkaye (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure what you are requesting, exactly, nor what particular expertise you think I have. However, glancing at the discussion on Talk:Creation myth, it appears to me that the title is neutral and correct, and a move to "Account of creation" would introduce WP:OR phrasing in place of the commonly used and accepted anthropological and literary-theory term. It appears you might be unfamiliar with the scientific use of the term "myth" and misread it as meaning something like "untrue story" instead.  However, even the introduction to the article seems to give a rather good definition of this accepted scientific usage, so that would be a good start.  LotLE × talk  20:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit on RaH
Heya, i edite the Argumentum ad Hitler page to include a reference for its use in Latin America (specifically Puerto Rico) I saw that the Spanish page for the article was too short for it to be worthwhile posting it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcastigador (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

COM topic ban
Hi, I see that there is an Obama articles topic ban but I think a different user was banned from all political articles. Am I missing something? -- Banj e b oi   02:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * CoM spent a while "exploring the boundaries" of his ban. In particular, he spent a while inserting Obama-related material into the ACORN article, while belligerently making the argument that it wasn't an Obama article, and so the ban didn't apply.  Eventually some administrator slapped him down on ANI, or one of those admin pages (I have trouble keeping them straight), and clarified that the ban extended there.  I see CoM's recent attempts at provocation on Barney Frank... those definitely seem to flaunt the spirit of his topic ban, but I'm not sure he's crossed it in a sanctionable way.
 * You might be thinking of Noroton as subject to a broader ban. I don't remember the exact details of what was done there, but I think it was something along the lines of a general politics ban.  I get confused on this though... there are also dozens of sockpuppets who always seem to align closely with these folks, and most of those have been outright indef blocked.  There might be some other account you are thinking of that isn't coming to my mind right now.  LotLE × talk  03:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, for some real fun by "the usual suspect", you can take a look at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/November. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.  LotLE × talk  03:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I went exploring further. Did you already read RESTRICT.  CoM is listed under several overlapping restriction there, including a revert restriction Wikipedia-wide.  LotLE × talk  03:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Yes I was thinking more of Grundle but if socks are involved (sigh) well, I guess we just have to be patient and move forward. Reading through all the CoM ones looks like further testing may be going on. I actually hate doing ANI reports and his was the most time-sucky one. It was good to document, which in the case has to be done, but it wasn't pleasant. As far as I can tell they are constructive in some areas but I also found his editing of talkpage comments made finding out the true nature of problems required further and tenacious digging. I have a hunch that if things remain on the same trajectory that patience will wear out altogether. And if they are doing good work that would be a shame. -- Banj e  b oi   23:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't ever taken more than the quickest glance at his other edits that don't touch mine, but it looks like CoM has done a bunch of edits on food-related topics that seem perfectly fine, probably even helpful. I guess there aren't the same political flames to be had over describing some obscure (to most readers) recipe, and CoM seems to have an interest in that.  I wish him well on those if he stays out of the areas where he causes trouble and acts belligerently.  LotLE × talk  00:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ADL
I'm very opposed to having one sentence in the criticism section that doesn't explain why CAIR has criticized ADL. That is unfair and misleading.

So either we repeat CAIR's criticism (and the entire story) in the criticism section or we leave it out. If we're telling readers that CAIR has criticized ADL, we need to tell them why.VR talk  18:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Zizek image
Sorry. You're right, I should have thought that through a little more. My thinking was that the photo of him shows his head kind of small and is grainy, giving us his legs front and center. But you're right, for these purposes any photo is almost always better than a hand-made image, especially one like mine, which is not modeled on any photo but based on looking at media (photos videos) of the man. Pablosecca (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User page vandalized
Thanks for reverting the vandalism. There is an ongoing edit war at Flash Video with someone in China who insists on adding links to commercial software. The page has already been semiprotected over this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit history comments
You have been editing here for a long time, and as you are editing policy pages I presume that on reflection you will agree that comments in the edit history of NPOV like that you placed in the history of the NPOV article are not appropriate, because such comments make it harder to reach a consensus (see WP:CIVIL). -- PBS (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 21:03, 27 November 2009 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ‎ (not happy with unconstructive edits that diminish NPOV, but at least point to relevant related guidelines)
 * 21:13, 27 November 2009 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ‎ (these deletions are reading like WP:POINTy bad faith, we really shouldn't directly undercut this policy)


 * OK, those were indeed too snippy as comments. But I am enormously frustrated by these removals, which seem mean spirited, if not outright bad faith.  As discussed at some length on the talk page, we really do need clarification on when to refactor articles.  I have indeed edited for a very long time, on a whole lot of articles, and the main POV issue I have encountered is exactly the issue I've been trying to address.  Well, the main one is just outright WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAPBOX stuff; but once you get past stuff that simply obviously doesn't belong on WP, the worst NPOV violation is usually WP:WEIGHT, and in the specific sense of too many words on some side topic (that is nonetheless neutral, verifiable, etc).


 * FWIW, I think I'd be happy to live with not trying to get the clarification directly in WP:NPOV if the WP:UNDUE section at least contains a pointer to WP:SPLIT and WP:TOPIC, and if you don't interfere with clarifying the HOWTO in WP:SPLIT. I still think the clarifying sentence is best in WP:NPOV, but I can at least see an argument that it's not central enough to neutrality per se.  But WP:POINTily removing the edit from WP:SPLIT just feels like pure bad faith.  LotLE × talk  22:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot has to do with one's experience. It really depends in which areas one edits. If you were to edit articles which have high levels of nationalistic content where where articles on Wikipdia are used as a forum to develop these views then you would quickly see that weight is a minor issue in comparison to ethnic conflict, (See User:Philip Baird Shearer). For example what is the correct name for the article on the state that occupies the largest part of the island of Ireland? Should it be "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" or "Republic of Ireland"?
 * Although it is not my major area of interest I watch and edit some articles which are subject to such conflicts. One of them is the area of genocide. There are two sub articles split from the Armenian Genocide article that I also think are a content fork, see talk:denial of the Armenian Genocide. I think that the wording you are suggesting adding to the NPOV would make problems like this more difficult to resolve than it is currently. -- PBS (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The language I added absolutely would not encourage that sort of of content forking. I certainly recognize the danger you write of.  I have worked on a moderate number of articles that had issues very close to what you mention.  The difference—a difference that is made clear in my added language—is between a different approach to the whole topic area (which indeed should not have a separate article) versus a subtopic of the article (which often should have a separate article with appropriate {see also} or {main} links between the two).  So on the one hand "Armenian genocide" shouldn't occupy an undue portion of the more general Genocide (hence the need for my language); on the other hand, there certainly should not be separate articles on, e.g., "Armenian genocide" and "Armenian-Turkish conflict" (which simply took a different position on whether there was a genocide, or on where to assign guilt, etc, but covered the same historical events).  Absolutely nothing in my added language would encourage the latter problem to the slightest degree though.  LotLE × talk  19:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is precisely this difference of opinion on whether the proposed wording will or will not weaken the policy which is being discussed on the policy talk page and just because people disagree with your position it does not mean that they are "WP:POINTily removing the edit from WP:SPLIT" and acting in bad faith, any more than you adding them was making a point or acting in bad faith. I hope that you can see this an will stop making comments which will hinder the consensus building process. -- PBS (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

After my last posting to this page you made this edit with a comment of "Seriously! Now we have WP:POINTy removal of even the shortcuts to WP:WEIGHT?! No one must ever know that WP:UNDUE is policy now?!" was no better than the ones you made before which you acknowledged as "OK, those were indeed too snippy as comments." Have you read WP:CIVIL? Did it cross you mind that Crum375 may have made a mistake? What ever happened to assume good faith? -- PBS (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My AfD
Hi. Thanks for your concern regarding my recent AfD close. Let me assure you that I have no personal opinion whatsoever on the topic, and I have no reason to push a point of view. I felt that despite the appearance of an overwhelming consensus to retain the article, the debate overall favored deletion, and so I closed the discussion accordingly. I'd be more than happy to explain my closure in more detail, but I'd like to ask that you avoid saying that I acted out of "bad faith", as it simply isn't accurate. Hopefully we can work together civilly to work out any potential dispute. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to say simply that you showed extraordinarily bad judgment, but acted in good faith. Given the complete absence of any policy or guideline cited by any 'Delete' vote (or by you in closing it), this is astonishingly bad as judgment goes. As far as I can see, you simply ignored all the opinions on the AfD, and decided you didn't like the article, for whatever reasons motivated you.  LotLE × talk  03:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read what I said. I have no opinion on the article whatsoever. If I had any shadow of a doubt that my views on an article would cloud my judgment, I would avoid closing its AfD. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

3rr
Hi, Lulu. I'm seeing you as having made four reverts to Naomi Klein in about three hours. Is that right? (I'm not being facetious, I do sometimes get these things wrong.) If so, could you please self-revert? Thanks, IronDuke  01:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I have not. I made one revert, and a half dozen related edits to try to find a version that doesn't belabor the Friedman hagiography quite so badly. But they are not reverts, since I've tried several approaches.  On the other hand, your edits there have all been reverts, which is bad form.  Can't we just allow a version that isn't so badly written and that mentions the travails of poor Saint Milton only one time? I don't care if you want the Norberg version or the Redburn one, but we definitely do not need both (the Redburn one looks slightly less tortured, but you reverted me on that, so I tried a different approach).  LotLE × talk  04:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lulu, you use the word "revert" in two of your own edit summaries. And yes, there are two other reverts in there, you may wish to take a closer look. It is mildly complex (but only mildly) and sure, that might sail past a 3rr admin. But yes, I'm fairly certain you did. I don't intend to revert or edit this bit without further discussion on the talk page, but in the meantime, I really think you should self-revert. IronDuke  04:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've filed a 3rr report. I'm sorry to say that, as I consider it mostly a last resort. I hope we can work things out. IronDuke  05:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The edits appear to be as described at WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Edit warring. If you have a better interpretation, I would be happy to unblock. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied from the underlying 3RR claim, appended with more accurate description of the edits:
 * 1st revert: reverting out a defense of a book review critical  of Klein... ''this one is a revert to restore a prior version of the article that has less added contentious material, and avoids WP:BLP violation.
 * 2nd revert: reverting back in Klein's critique of her critics... this is not a revert at all, and is not related directly to the removal in so-called "1st revert".  This edit rephrases and condenses some material that had been in the article earlier, but in more encyclopedic language.  Where so-called "1st revert" did remove some material of Klein critics, this one inserts some comments by Klein herself (brand new wording, never before in article).
 * 3rd revert: Reverted out a defense of Klein's critics... this is the removal of a different sentence than addressed in any of the above edits, in an effort to simplify and sharpen the overall section.
 * 4th revert: Reverted out a defense of Klein's critics.... in response to IronDuke's concern in his continual reversion, I decided to take a different approach, and retain the comments by Klein critic Norberg, and instead remove (some of) those by Redburn.  The prior removals did exactly the reverse, trimming Norberg while retaining Redburn.  Both attempts are in the same general goal of improving the same section, but about different sentences within it, and attempting to find compromise language.

Moreover, all the edits I made, although not violating 3RR in any case, were made before any "warning" or discussion was suggested by IronDuke (who has engaged in actual repeated reversion of same article. LotLE × talk  08:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Those all appear to be reverts (by your own admission). Note that WP:3RR applies to all reverts made to a given article in a 24 hour period, even if they are reverting completely different material.  Were you unaware of this? Steve Smith (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not reverts, other than one of them, and at no point (other than the one actual revert) is the same version of the article in place twice. Rather, I tried several different versions of the language of the section in an attempt to reach an improved section whose language would satisfy other editors.  Some of my edits were deletions (and hence not to any prior version), and others were additions of brand new wording.  By no stretch are the latter three edits reverts at all.  LotLE × talk  08:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is functionally a revert of this (the wording's not identical, but the material you reinserted is very similar to, if slightly briefer than, the material removed). This is a complete revert of this edit.  This functionally reverts this edit, though again the language isn't exactly identical.  You appear to have been trying to work productively and to have been unaware of the specifics of WP:3RR, so I'll check if the blocking admin objects to my unblocking, but there's really no question that you violated WP:3RR. Steve Smith (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The blocking admin has indicated that he/she has no objections to an unblock, so I'm going to go ahead and do that. Be aware that reverts need not restore exactly the previous language; substantially undoing another editor's edit is enough. Steve Smith (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)