User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive21

Good Faith Assumption

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. I made an edit to the Ward Churchill article and you reverted it immediately and stated that I was POV pushing. You can review your comments here: [1]--Getaway 17:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, your edit was inappropriate, and reversion was correct. So I'm not sure the complaint. But I confess that if I had not already had to address this exact POV-pushing a hundred times in the past, I might be slightly more warm-and-cuddly in my specific comments. In any case, there is absolutely no point in "refuting" the claim that Churchill never made of having Creek tribal membership. It's just another "when did you stop beating your wife" thing, like many such insertions in that article. LotLE×talk 19:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My edit was inappropriate, in your opinion. I'm sorry that you have decided to address this exact issue in the past (since it has arisen in the past then there probably is some validity to it), but that does not excuse your decision not to "assume good faith." Please review the policy once again. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Your attitude does not build community. It only breaks it down and Wikipedia is a community that appreciates editors that engage in civil discourse.--Getaway 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a point here? I assume(d) that you were editing wrongly in good faith, and I did not say otherwise. In fact, I incorporated your addition to make the claim of Creek heritage more prominent, and also disambiguated the link to Creek people (as opposed to the other meanings: a stream, a rock band, etc). LotLE×talk 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a point here. I believe that my edit had some merit to it. Now, you don't agree and I have decided to agree with your view of it, temporarily, until I do some more research. But that does not mean that you were absolutely, undeniably correct as your attitude gives off and it does not mean that I was engaging in POV pushing, which is the assumption to which you jumped. Yes, there is a point here. You need to assume good faith, which you did not do. I was attempting to make, what I believed to be, a valid edit, and you jumped down my throat with POV pushing name-calling, that is not "assuming good faith." Also, when I confronted you on this issue today. You gave me some ridiculous response that you have "already had to address this exact POV-pushing a hundred times in the past." Where you once again, call my edit POV-pushing and you basically blew off my point about "assuming good faith", you repeated your charge that my attempt at an edit was "POV-pushing", and you take out your frustration on previous battles over this issue on me. This is not appropriate behaviour as a Wikipedian editor. Once again, Wikipedia is a community and you are engaging in commentary that tears down the community spirit, not build it up. So as far as I can see, you (1) jumped to the conclusion that I was "POV pushing", (2) did not "assume good faith", and (3) repeated your claim that I was "POV pushing." Why do you feel the need to engage in behavior that breaks down the community spirit of Wikipedia? Yeah, my point is quite clear. Please engage in behaviour that is appropriate and community building. Assume good faith. Don't jump down people's throats. You asked me: "Is there a point here? " Yes, the simple answer is: See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. --Getaway 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

When you get around to having done 1/50th as many edits as I have, you'll start to notice that comments on an edit aren't the same thing as comments on an editor. I look forward to that time, and I am certain you will become a good editor.

Wikipedia ain't a community, BTW, it's an encyclopedia. I don't work on this to make friends, and a really don't give a damn if anyone likes me... I do care quite a lot about making articles better, and edit accordingly. If you want a "social network" site or a "discussion site", there are plenty of them out there. LotLE×talk 19:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So you have decided that the Wikipedian policy about "assuming good faith" does not apply to you. I will keep that in mind. --Getaway 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! (and I ain't even an xtian). Nothing I have written for one moment suggested I did no "assume good faith". Do you really just enjoy petty bickering for its own sake?! You made a bad edit or two (not the worst, but not really encyclopedic); I fixed it, and incorporated some of your content; I forgot the whole thing within five minutes; you decided to carry on this annoying tirade on my user talk page... WTF? LotLE×talk 20:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't have done it without you. But you do have to have the last word. --Getaway 02:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

IPython/ShowMeDo spamming

First of all - sorry for causing you to spend time deleting my entries, spam-behaviour wasn't my intention. I thought that free videos showing people how to use the tools in question would be useful for those who are researching and learning. I often use 'external links' when learning about a new package.

I have made the edits over several months as I've gained confidence in editing WP...now I'm nervous again (but I'm learning!).

What you added wasn't egregious; it's more a question of balance. I'm sure you are legitimately enthusiastic about the collection of videos you've put together. But enthusiasm over your own project can tend to skew you judgment of relevance to an article.

As I mentioned, where a project already has a great deal of "official" documentation, links to someone's well intentioned personal project starts to turn into "link farming"... not necessarily even from a site-ranking inflation perspective, but just in turning WP into an empty link collection. I think the Python article already has too many links, and adding additional minor ones makes it worse. The same is mostly true of a lot of programming topics, but the Python one is the one I've worked on the most. The goal of WP is not to list every relevant outside resource; instead it's to provide a self-contained description of a topic, with only enough links to document the claims made in the article. Google or Yahoo directories are better places for link collections. LotLE×talk 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite understand. As I've commented on my talk page (User_talk:Ianozsvald) I'm living-and-learning about what is appropriate.

Secondly - if editing your talk page is the wrong way to contact you then I'm real sorry...it looks like the right way to contact you and I don't see anything else in the help pages :-( If personal email is best then I'm on ian AT showmedo DOT com.

I have deleted the Eclipse->ShowMeDo link that you queried - as I say I'd prefer not to be considered a spammer. If you have concerns about any remaining links then I'll happily lift those too.

For the IPython page I was not aware that the text on the public wiki was copyrighted (I assumed it came under the same BSD license as the tool). I shall expand the section under my own steam - I have used IPython for several years and consider it a valuable resource, I think it is a good addition to WP for those looking to understand the Python ecosystem.

I noticed also that the IPython page had the same language copied to the WP article. That's a minor no-no; but as long as we can expand and change the language to be our own, I don't think there's any problem. Did someone else complain of the copyvio issue? LotLE×talk 16:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The copyvio was only flagged by User:Butseriouslyfolks on User_talk:Ianozsvald. Given that the copy/pasted text has been removed for IPython and I've expanded the original article, can the tag be lifted? I posted the hangon tag as per the instructions from Butseriouslyfolks on my talk page. Looking through to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IPython it looks like I posted the hangon tag when perhaps it wasn't needed, so maybe I've just created discussion where none was justified? Dang, have to say Sorry again. (Still living and learning).

Again - apologies for causing you to spend time on this.

Ianozsvald 09:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey Stuff

Sorry you've lost me. I haven't falsely claimed anything. Church originally posted an outside view which wasn't an outside view, it equated to a question. In line with RFC practice of comments/questions being on the talk page I moved it, that is what both he and I refer to. Regarding Petrofsky's statement I haven't said anywhere that I've done anything other than remove it. It has little bearing on the dispute Hipocrite raises, is mainly trying to drag an outside dispute onto wiki and will do little to progress the dispute It'll possibly inflame or possibly garner Merkey some sympathy from the apparent pursuit of that external dispute. Merkey's actions on wiki should be plenty enough for the community to decide what action to take... --pgk 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You wrote on Church's talk page: "I didn't revert your edit, just moved it to talk." However, your edits on the RfC and its talk consisted exclusively of [2] and [3]. Both of these are deletions, and no edit by you in relation to the RfC is a move from RfC to talk. Ergo, your claim on Church's talk page is false. I'm happy to assume it was carelessly false rather than deliberately misleading, but that's how it is.

In any case, please retain Al Petrofsky's comment within the RfC. If you wish to genuinely move it to the RfC talk page, I will not object; but it is not appropriate to blank it altogether. LotLE×talk 18:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[4] [5]. I'll return your generous favour and assume you are just being careless in making your own false statements. It is perfectly appropriate to remove what amounts to little more than trolling, an attempt to inflame (and indeed I was not the first person to do so), I cannot see how you believe a brand new account created to restore some old comments specifically blanked by Jimbo and to post that are in anyway interested in resolving an on wikipedia dispute. That said I don't care to edit war over it and I've had my say. --pgk 19:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess your comment could have referred to a different part of the discussion, rather than Petrofsky's comment. LotLE×talk 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I will once again remove this attack post from an attack-only account; please do not restore it. See WP:RfC:"RfC is not a venue for personal attack." There are legitimate issues being discussed in the RfC from which this is at best an unwelcome distraction.Proabivouac 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel quite vehemently that blanking of this sort is categorically wrong. It has nothing to do with any specific content of the comment, nor about any specific party involved. It's just simply not your place to say who may and may not participate in the discussion in the first place. Disagree, fine. Even say in a threaded response that you think the comment is an attack. But do not delete it! J.S. Mill was on target here: The cure for bad ideas is better ideas (i.e. not censorship of the bad ones... obviously, an RfC or a talk page is a different animal than is a content article, the latter is not a "discussion"). LotLE×talk 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Long time no speak... How are you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Very, very busy with non-WP stuff (i.e. work). I just get drawn into occasional editing matters here. Btw. If I remember you're in California, where I've moved to... but at the other end of it, I'm working in Beverly Hills now (living a few blocks over the border in Los Angeles).... nope, definitely not movies. But interesting computer programs, that come with some fairly abstract thinking about "ontology". Btw. If you feel like writing, Jossi, feel free to off-channel. I think you had it, but a quick search for my "real name" will show my email quickly enough. LotLE×talk 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, P.S.: the addition of Stalin to Zizek's influences page wasn't actually more out of line than was David Lynch. There's a delightful scene in the movie Zizek! where he discusses why he keeps a picture of Stalin on his wall, and about his ambivalent relationship with totalitarianism. But for a number of names that have gotten added in that section, they only rise to "yep, Zizek knows about that person". Actually, Kant is a bit borderline, as is Descartes. Obviously, any philosopher is very influenced by both... but not especially so for Zizek. The Ticklish Subject book make a prima facie case for Descartes though; but I'd still but Schelling higher on the list. Hegel, Lacan and Marx, certainly, are on target. LotLE×talk 02:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive!

WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless ^{Type words!}.

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Michael-franti.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael-franti.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nominalist Wikipedians

I suspected that the category was created with the conscious intent or subconscious desire to puzzle others. After all, one need only consider the fact that individualds who identify as nominalists applied to themselves the abstract label of "nominalist" (via a general category of all things).

As regards the deletion, I don't view the "Myspace" analogy to be appropriate when it comes to "by philosophy" categories (narrowly defined), but the category was challenged on the more general basis of its lack of collaborative potential. If such potential exists and I missed it, please point it out to me. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I was sort of making idle chatter on your talk page, simply because I saw your edit to my user page and followed it to the deletion. The category only ever had a handful of members AFAIK, which in practice means it wasn't used for any collaboration, regardless whether it has any "theoretical" merit as a category. LotLE×talk 02:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for violating the three-revert rule on Ward Churchill misconduct issues. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation and or Arbitration

I think there is a way to bring about an end to Verlempt's disruptive ways. I know that there is at least 3 of us who would like to put a stop to his incessant reverting of anything he views as pro Churchill or pro Peltier. I intend to move slowly and intend to do all I can to stop the edit warring. I am not sure how the wiki ideas on creating a consensus works but I intend to find out . It may come down to the reverting power of majority. But I think there are novel ways of protecting articles by repairing them. Meanwhile it may be a good idea to not allow yourself to get suckered into violating the 3r rule. And oh yes there is always mediation and or arbitration Albion moonlight 10:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My disagreement with you is only disruptive to your personal agenda, not to the broader project. Furthermore, my disagreement with you on this issue is trivial. I really am not that invested in this particular link debate. My suggestion is that you focus on constructive ways of making this project better, rather than conspiring to get rid of people who simply disagree with you, by smearing them as "disruptive". Smear tactics and ad hominem attacks always indicate a lack of good faith and a fundamental inability to argue from logic and evidence.Verklempt 18:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time in the past dealing with disruptive and POV editors like Verklempt. I haven't found anything that is hugely successful. If they're bad enough, they eventually manage to get banned; but his pattern doesn't seem as extreme as that. While I'm entirely with you in spirit, I don't want to spend the huge number of hours I have in the past working through administrativia. I might voice support for some effort you engage in, but not actively pursue such matters.

FWIW, you might notice in the 3RR report that I was the reporter. And I stated there that I should myself be blocked along with Verklempt. That was the procedurally correct action (although arguably, I had one less revert, since I only restored his reversions... my side was still reasonable to characterize as edit-waring, however). LotLE×talk 16:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not the right place

Please do not add side-line discussions that I am not participating in to my talk page. An article talk page, and administrative page, or an involved discussant's talk page are appropriate places for these discussions. LotLE×talk 21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked!?!?!

Hahaha... you got blocked? how sweet it is.....-Kmaguir1 08:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Why are you trolling, young Kevin?

FWIW, if you figure out about reading, you'll see that I got blocked for 24 hours because I requested that I should be blocked (despite being at 3 reverts, not 4, myself). So what are you off vandalizing nowadays? LotLE×talk 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Getaway as a sockpuppet

Read the Ward Churchill misconduct talk page. It looks like Verklempt may have brought in either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Albion moonlight 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is possible. The editor Getaway has made a number of non-constructive changes over the history of the Ward Churchill articles, as has Verklempt. I get the impression that their writing styles are non-identical though. So that might be "meatpuppet". However, I think it's really more like "ideologically aligned"; and that's not in itself a basis for an administrative action. LotLE×talk 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Lulu has always made several "non-constructive changes" to the Ward Churchill article also. Albion moonlight needs to provide solid evidence for his allegations and rumours. So far I have not seen any. --Getaway 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything. I am having fun . You made a big mistake by underestimating me. There will be peace on the pages you and Verklempt have been editing. Peace and consensus. Albion moonlight 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Those comments are just beyond comprehension. Oh, by the way, I'm still waiting on your so-called evidence that Verklempt and I are sockpuppets of each other. Get back to me when you get someone to go along with your lame theory.--Getaway 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No it is on his talk page.

An administrator named Woohookitty has confirmed it. I am now looking to find his straw man if he has one. I do know what to look for. The straw man must cover his tracks and wash his hands of the whole affair. This is great. It will be up to the administrators to decide what to do I just want to make sure that he is exposed to the other editors as a person who has used sock puppets in the past. Albion moonlight 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rambling, rambling, rambling. Where is the evidence????--Getaway 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way...

Sonofhealfdane was NOT a sock. And now he can't edit on wikipedia again. -Kmaguir1 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Gregbard 04:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Ward Churchill misconduct allegations

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ward Churchill misconduct allegations, by Crockspot (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ward Churchill misconduct allegations is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ward Churchill misconduct allegations, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Churchill-Luxemburg.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Churchill-Luxemburg.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

WC AFD

I havent seen you vote on this, so I dont know if you are aware of it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward Churchill misconduct issues. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Ward Churchill. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you wish to request review of this decision, please place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

I'm certainly always happy to help with BLP issues, but I'm failing to see where the BLP issue is here. The part in dispute here is not unsourced or poorly sourced, the Denver Post is a reputable newspaper, and the source cited backs up the edit from what I can see. Of course, you're still welcome to argue it shouldn't be in the article, but that's a content issue, not a BLP issue, and admins' powers to solve content disputes number exactly zero. If you still disagree though, you may wish to post at the BLP noticeboard for some additional opinions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty precise: Wp:blp#Criticism. Much of the article (everything put there by Getaway and Verklempt) puts undue weight on criticism (cited, yes, but out of balance with the article). Essentially, it's all WP:COATRACK. Merely sourcing a coatrack doesn't solve the problem, especially now that WP:BLP is taken more seriously than it was a couple years ago (some of that before the policy even existed). LotLE×talk 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Coatrack....thanks for that one...I have never seen that page before.--MONGO 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus anyone ? I'm with you on this one. Lulu. I am willing to help you and the other like minded editors create a consensus. If Getaway and Verklempt go against consensus they can be dealt with. I am also willing to make one revert a day on the article in question. Feel free to contact me in lieu of violating the 3 revert rule. I have it on my watch list but I do not always check to see who did what and why. So feel free to alert me on my talk page when and if you want me to weigh in etc etc etc Albion moonlight 22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! It looks like Albion moonlight and Lulu are working on a plan of action to manipulate the 3RR rule right here on Lulu's talk page. Amazing. Since the 3RR rules are being violated right here, right now then there is a need Albion and Lulu to review the Wikipedian rule against gaming the system to beat 3RR: This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Also, based upon Albion's out in the open and clear attempts to form a team to force "consensus" down the throats of those who don't agree with Albion and Lulu, we need to review this other Wikipedian policy that is being ignored and stepped on this clear decision to game the system to the benefit of editors that want to remove sourced, cited, and relevant information from the Churchill article: When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance--Getaway 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I won't be doing any gaming of any system (nor, FWIW, is my intent like Getaway's to violate WP:BLP). But it's quite a stunning accusation coming from someone who has collaborated so closely with Verklempt to game the system for POV pushing on the article in question.

And wouldn't it be just awful if editors reached consensus, thereby not allowing the POV nonsense that the two mentioned editors are trying to push by themselves).

Btw. Please go away from my talk page. I don't want this crap here. Use your own talk page, or better yet, put it in your private diary, under your pillow. LotLE×talk 01:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)