71.57.8.103 (talk) |
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs) best wishes |
||
Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
::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). <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 22:17, 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). <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 22:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::I've proposed a non-punitive solution at [[WP:ANI]]. Please review and comment. Thanks .... [[Special:Contributions/71.57.8.103|71.57.8.103]] ([[User talk:71.57.8.103|talk]]) 05:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
:::I've proposed a non-punitive solution at [[WP:ANI]]. Please review and comment. Thanks .... [[Special:Contributions/71.57.8.103|71.57.8.103]] ([[User talk: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. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 05:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:56, 30 October 2009
Archives
I confess that I tire of foolishness quickly (even my own). At this rate, I'm going to need hourly archives..
01 ǁ
02 ǁ
03 ǁ
04 ǁ
05 ǁ
06 ǁ
07 ǁ
08 ǁ
09 ǁ
10 ǁ
11 ǁ
12 ǁ
13 ǁ
14 ǁ
15 ǁ
16 ǁ
17 ǁ
18 ǁ
19 ǁ
20 ǁ
21 ǁ
22 ǁ
23 ǁ
24 ǁ
25 ǁ
26 ǁ
27 ǁ
28 ǁ
29 ǁ
30 ǁ
Sandbox
New Stuff
ChildofMidnight back at ArbCom
You are mentioned (implicitly) here[1]. PhGustaf (talk) 01:56, 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)
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[2] 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)
"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)
- 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)
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, as you did at Naomi Klein. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --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#Wikipedia is not censored 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#Attributing and specifying biased statements 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#Undue weight. 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 Wikipedia: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)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Just so you know II
You're being discussed here: [3] 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)
- 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)
- 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)