User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive10

Thanks

Thank you. [1] He's driving me insane. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me too :-(. (the flower makes it all better though). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA, as well as your other comments on the RfA page! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenogenesis

In the future, please sign your comments.
Please read WP:VAND, Anakin Skywalker is alleged to be born without a father according to the Darth Vader article.

I would appreciate an apology for your comment on my talk page. Karmafist 04:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to sign. But please leave the silly nonsense out of a scientific article. I have no idea what the ficitional backstory is for Darth Vader, but no one interested in biology cares about some fictional fantasy (which probably isn't parthenogenesis anyway). I did think there was some mention of the father in the very forgetable "episode one", but maybe I remember wrong.

And no... don't add Jesus, Saint Anne, Golem, or whatever other myth/fiction either. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a fellow lefty! I'd probably be at your level if I didn't live in this damn right wing town. However, I might be moving after tomorrow.

Pretty nearby too... Turners Falls, MA (I'm not really revealing anything, just a couple clicks can get you satellite images of my house, for the bombing route :-)). In fact, just making across the Vermont border would probably get you a more progressive town (north of Boston, not as much). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I've been to Greenfield a few times, I have a bunch of progressive friends from that area during my time as a Steering Committee member on Swing The Vote. I'm still a vestigial member since I don't live around there anymore, but I may be moving back to Southwest NH, which is alot better politically than this area. Karmafist 05:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you make it back as far as Keene, let's do coffee sometime. It would be nice to see what a fellow Wikipedian looks like in real life :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Parthenogenesis issue, I disagree with you on inclusion there, and it seems that there probably should be a separate section towards notable and NPOV views and topics regarding Partenogenesis outside of just biology. Although it's disputed with Anakin Skywalker, Shmi Skywalker said she wasn't impregnated by anyone, but this is only glossed over during the movie. I'll probably add it tomorrow though, it's getting late.Karmafist 05:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. There's already a link to Virgin birth that lists dozens of mythological/fictional figures. We don't need to list dozens of such examples in a biological article. If you want to add a very brief annotation to the link for Virgin birth, I could live with that. But the Star Wars fiction is probably the least interesting example of fictional parthenogenesis in mammals/humans (assuming that's the actual story, which I really don't care about). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later before doing anything; to me editing is like driving, don't do it while you're drunk or sleepy unless you want to risk getting into a Wiki-traffic accident. I find it to be the most interesting example, but that's just my POV. Karmafist 05:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I see that you online at the moment, so if you have time, it'd be a lot of help if you can drop a few words at Talk:History of the United States (1988-present). I'm dealing with a really tendentious user who is insisting that it is "obvious" that Samuel P. Huntington is "highly critical" of U.S. foreign policy, in the same sense of people like William Blum and Noam Chomsky. I have a lot of experience with this user, and he tends to ignore my comments while repeating himself and continuing reversions. But he tends to be more reasonable with feedback with some other users, promoting me to look for help. 172 | Talk 09:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Nicest Edit War Ever

Wow, that was the nicest edit war i've ever seen. I'm happy as long as people at parthenogesis can go over to virgin birth and vice versa since they're in the same vein, except one is a biological term and the other is a literary term. Maybe a disambig notice at the top of each page would be good. No biggie.

I was just in Keene yesterday, and it looks likely to be a recurring thing, so just drop me an e-mail sometime and pick a day. I think the next time i'll be over there is the 22nd. Karmafist 22:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO

Hi, I was shocked and dismayed to see the following edits by you in relation to MONGO's nomination for adminship:

Given the very selective group of people whom you contacted, this looked to me a bit like campaigning against a nominee. This really doesn't seem to be very fair. --Tony Sidaway^t 10:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked and dismayed?!

I put a neutral message on the user talk pages of a few users whom I had remembered had been treated with particular rancor by MONGO during the "decency war". The only issue I have with MONGO's adminship—and in fact my only contact with him—was around his edits on that Wikiproject (and a few user talk pages that spun off it).

It is not only proper, but in fact extremely desirable, to let the users who are most likely to have concerns with MONGO's adminship know about his nomination. I know some people feel that the default vote on an RfA is "approve"; to my mind, however, it is better to decline admins who have significant histories of conflict with other editors (or at least if those issues do not seem to have been resolved or forgotten). Still, I have not had any intersection with the above editors since August (except a slight bit with Hipocrite), so had no specific knowledge of whether they had more recent experiences with MONGO. That's why I implicitly requested their opinions to the RfA. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right to voice your opinion and your vote as strongly as you wish. Lulu, I never solicited to be an admin and had long ago resolved that I never would be one. After repeated requests by other editors to allow them to nominate me over the past two months, I finally decided to run. I do a fair amount of RC patrol and article tagging for speedy delete and in these circumstances the tools would be helpful. I am opposed to page protection and, like Mr. Sidaway, not interested in blocking people for violating 3RR, unless they are repetitive violators of this. I came to your talk page to discuss with you the merge proposal over at the Encylopedic Merit page and saw Tony's post above. I am not campaigning for this and have only addressed the concerns (and good ones at that) by Hipocrite and the allegation of sockpuppet use by Rdsmith4. Edits posted by Mr. Tibbs are accurate and reflect that I have engaged in edit warring and POV pushing in the past, and some of that was almost a year ago. I don't even know why I got into the whole sordid Decency project, but I saw that Agriculture appeared to be getting attacked and so my typical big brother approach came out and there is no doubt that my behavior was unwiki and downright rude. You were right as well, that you should be called "Doctor". I have a Masters, and Ellis R. Kerley was my go to. I did not go for a PhD because I was broke, and truthfully, too lazy. I know that achieving a doctorate is no small affair, and in conjuction with your subsequent achievements, the title of "Dr." is well earned. --MONGO 10:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel like a rat in a cage because I almost felt compelled to accept a nomination at some point by someone and finally did so from a person that was a former adversary of mine and then have to see all the mish-mash...just so it is easier to rollback vandals and do a few more speedy deletes of nonsense. Interestingly, Sidaway and I also sparred for some time as well. You have been very open minded as to my evolution and I appreciate that. Just remember that while I would like to be an admin, I did not ask for it, I was approached by others and I even did what I could to delay the nomination for a couple of months. Regardless of the outcome, if our paths cross again in this wiki I'll ensure that you know that I respect your opinion and your contributions. As a subnote, if this nomination fails, I won't be running again.--MONGO 10:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do consider adminship again, assuming this one fails. I have nothing against you (though I do have a memory, augmented by an ability to check edit histories :-)); in my own mind, it takes about 6 months of constructive editing by a WPian to fully remove any taint of a past confrontational pattern. That standard isn't written down anywhere I know of, it's just how things strike me personally. Six months is not forever, but it is longer than 2.5 months. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Dr." thing

I only vaguely recall the "Dr." thing. It had something to do with calling Jimbo "Mr. Whales", didn't it? It is true that I have a doctorate, but I'm sure that anything I wrote in the discussion about that was meant as coy irony (or maybe a little bit of "poking fun"). To get a slight sense of what I actually think of titles, see the story I share with Xoloz on this current talk page :-).... oh, I call "Mr. Tibbs" that only because that's his username (a reference to the Sidney Potier movie, I assume). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...ah, I got curious, and refreshed my memory. Given my username, some editors use a female pronoun of me (about which I am utterly indifferent). I had jokingly written: I'm not concerned about the gender thing, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd address me more respectfully (and properly) as "Dr. Lulu" :-). Over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit#Godwin.27s_law MONGO responded:

It's unlikely I'll refer to you as Dr., Doc, or Phd. I only now looked at your user page and saw that you are a man or at least the stubbled chin would make you a rather unattractive female, so I'm sorry about the Ms. thing...your attitude reminded me of some of the feminazis I've encountered. As I have no proof aside from your claim to having a Phd, I won't be using that title as a form of designation for your rank (and even if proof of such was provided, you still wouldn't be addressed as such by me, sorry) [...more of similar...]

I think the fact I was joking was pretty clear from the context, and the smiley.[*] So the hostile response was a bit telling (but again, back in late August, not in November). Admittedly, my comment slightly later in the thread might be read as slightly scurrilous also (though I hoped for more "friendly jab"):

I suspect I won't be writing "Dr. MONGO" either, but not out of any passive aggressive withholding, but simply because he will not attain such a degree. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:26, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

*Digression: I have (had) a consulting company called Gnosis Software, Inc. And I know a bunch of people with doctorates (some of whom did very small tasks for my company). When I incorporated the company, I got a catalog from an "industrial apparel" company (off the state new incorporation lists, I assume). So I ordered a bunch of blue workshirts (like those typically worn by heating repairpeople or auto mechanics), and had embroidered "Dr. <Firstname>" on one side, and "Gnosis Software / We Know Stuff!" on the other. E.g. my shirt says "Dr. David". Y'know, Alfred Sohn-Rethel's intellectual and manual labor, and all that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings returned

Wow!

What is even stranger, good doctor, is that -- although you're about ten years my senior (give or take from the bio) -- we look very much the same. In fact, if I didn't have multi-colored ancestory and an expanded waistline, we would surely pass as brothers, maybe even twins to a observing drunk. :) So, yeah, you're handsome too!

Well, since David Mertz lists a birth year, you should be able to analyze the age thing with a fair specificity :-). And though I can't claim a very slim waist myself, the comment does make me curious for a picture on your user page (since you're obviously such a fine looking fellow). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Although I appreciate your kindness, you needn't think for a second that I kid myself--legal education is designed to permit an extreme lack of imagination, so my professional degree is crepe paper compared to a genuine academic's. If you hadn't realized this already, well... let's just say I recommend anyone with spare time and an IQ higher than this try law school at nights. The only problems a postmodernist encounters are recurring headaches arising from the average law professor's intractable positivism, but that is [why] alcohol is the student lawyer's friend. :)

So an anecdote (antidote?): When I got my Ph.D. certificate from our dear shared alma mater[*], I did the following.

Print out the phrases "David Q. Mertz" and "Doctor of Philosophy" in almost-but-not-quite the same Old English font that appears on the original certificate, and on white rather than cream paper.
Snip, snip w/ scissors, and a bit of temporary "magic" tape.
Make a color photocopy of the certificate with the phrase "David Q. Mertz" pasted over where the phrase "David Q. Mertz" appeared in the original; likewise for "Doctor of Philosophy".
Frame the copy; now hanging on the wall in front of me.
Send the original (minus taped on bits) to my dad, who might want it.

I do kinda wish I had a real office, rather than a home office, so that the most discerning visitors could notice the subtle mismatch in color and font on the framed degree. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

* Yeah, I know alma mater is really only your undergrad school... go with me on this.

Anyway, it warms my heart to know that real thinkers are lingering about WP. You give the project hope. If you ever need the help (or parroting vote) of a darker complection clone, let me know! Best wishes from the other side of the mirror, Xoloz 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jubasniper speedy redirect

Hi. I've speedily redirected Jubasniper to Juba (sniper), and closed the AfD accordingly. Thought you'd want to know. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO RfA

All of your severe criticism is of me is based on several severe misunderstandings, so natrually I must clearify. A)I said "that IP troll", I did not call you a troll, or the others. B)Either the people who joined were agaist the project or trolls/had no edit history. had no edit history means literaly no edit history, as in 1-10 edits; it was not a commentary but a statement of fact for SOME of the "members". Also, I already admitted that "he should not have edit warred over it". I could have been more clear about point B when I first wrote, but I don't know how you misunderstiod idea A, I only called the IP a "troll" and said that there were many AfD "trolls", I never said you or the others were trolls, that is a strawman.

If my wording does imply this stuff somehow, then show me where I will gladly change it to make it more clear that you et all are not trolls. Your tone, though, was much harsher than mine at the RfA...:-(. I ask that you removed those talk page comments as they are needlessly offensive.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 13:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of my comments on MONGO's RfA (or anywhere else) are about the VfD, but about the WfD/EM project itself. On the project itself, MONGO repeatedly removed the names of numerous named members with long edit histories from the "project members" list, declaring them unworthy based solely on his own judegment (and often calling us "trolls" or "vandals"). There was only ever one anonymous/IP number member who joined the project (I don't think it was right to remove that IP address either, FWIW). You just can't honestly get "numerous" out of one solitary IP address, so therefore your comments appear directed at the many named members who were removed by MONGO. If you want to act with the slightest degree of respect, you will simply remove the entire comment you placed below my RfA vote (and one of them below Radiant's, I think you have a couple in the latter place, and one of them makes the allegations). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were several AfD trolls and an WfEM "member" IP troll. Perhaps mentioning the AfD trolls was confusing you here, so I will reword. Those are the trolls, not you. You seem determined to think that I am some sort of terrible, disrespectful, Adolf Hitler and called everyone a troll. You et all are NOT trolls. And slight syntax rewording will do the trick to eliminate any confusion.

If you are saying that MONGO removed names because he didn't consider them "worthy" as opposed to "clearly against the project" then that makes MONGO's actions much worse, if true.

I am removing your comment from my talk due to its inflammatory nature. If you had dropped simple nice note I would gladly have reworded my comments, as I am doing anyway.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I would definitely describe you to all my friends as "not-Hitler" :-), I find it unpleasant for you to repeat (repeatedly) the same accusation MONGO kept insisting on in August that all the editors on WfD/EM who disagreed with him are trolls/vandals. Given the context, for you to use exactly the same words about exactly the same people is... well, not something that is first read with contorted generosity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was that Gigamaboob character and the IP 172....(who, by the way had been trailing me for months) that I considered trolls, not you or Hipocrite. I may have said that you were a troll, but, you know man, as I told Hipocrite, that project is dead and it is water under the bridge as far as I am concerned. Regardless, I still had no business removing anyone's name from the membership. To clarify my stupidity of that action, regardless of any edit summary to the contrary, I removed the names of people that I thought were in violation of WP:POINT and I viewed those memberships (erroneously) as disruptive. For me, those actions were 2,500 edits ago and several months in the past. I had "almost" forgotten about you Lulu, not to be rude as I truly do not have a beef with you in any way. We seem to pretty much do our own thing here so it is unlikely we were going to cross paths again as our editing interests are rather dissimiliar. I was, in fact surprised to see your vote on my nomination, but I welcome the feedback as it will help me ensure I don't piss someone off this much again.--MONGO 21:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across your RfA more-or-less accidentally. But August wasn't long enough ago, in my mind, to entirely clear the record of rather widespread bad behavior earlier (some I see now that I hadn't been aware of then, e.g. slurs against "foreigners and leftists"). Six months would be fine, but 2.5 months is not. It's not a grudge—I had pretty much forgotten who you were, actually—it's just my judgement about who should be given adminship. FWIW, I have no recollection of 'Gigamaboob' whatsoever, but I do recognize more than a half-dozen good editors (some admins) whom you were belligerent to. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Six months of good behavior

I think a lot of people were pretty hostile to each other in that entire mess. The Gigamaboob or whatever his/her name was, made a first edit to nominate the thing for deletion and then joined the project. My comment about foreigners and leftists was like on one of my first few edits I think back in January of 2005. It was farsical to the extreme and done purely as a tongue in cheek thing. I think that this time issue of six months, two months, etc is besides the point. The point is that I did behave that way, I said I wouldn't again, and that I learned from the bad behavior. Furthermore, I am so old now that it is unlikely watching a "pattern" of continued improvement would be enough for everyone to say that I have "matured". Either you can accept my acknowledgement that I behaved badly and my commitment to not do so again, or you can't....either way I respect your opinion. More time of being "good" doesn't mean that I will always be that way. I am a guy in his mid forties so if my word as a mature adult, admitting that my behavior was adolescent and that I won't do it again, doesn't convince you, then I don't see how another six months is going to matter.

No, your comment was on 14:53, 2005 August 21 (2003 Invasion of Iraq), and read, rv, antiwar foreigners pushing their POV. And on 06:43, 2005 August 21 you had inserted multiple disruptive sidebar comments into the article text itself. That's way too recent for my tastes. You did have some similarly unpleasant comments earlier too. So eight months after you "learned from your bad behavior" you were still engaging in it. I don't think despite being, apparently, slightly older than I am, you are either permanently fixed in your ways, nor completely changeable at will; but I do think "six months of non-confrontation" is a pretty good standard for editors who have been hostile. Maybe someone else thinks the standard should be two month, or two years—but six months just seems right to me.

Notice, BTW, that despite being the target of a heck of a lot of nastiness from you and other editors over at WfD/EM, there is not one single comment I made that I do not entirely stand by, nor that descends to abusiveness towards any other editor (I just read through the talk page, prompted by your notes here). Occasionally a bit sarcastic, but nothing directly insulting others. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you made regarding my unliklihood that I would ever attain a Phd was not exactly a polite one, though it may have been ispired. I was actually highly insulted by it. On Hipocrites talk page you started off stating that he shouldn't feed the trolls, and that could only mean folks like myself and Agriculture and Noitall. You also stated that I had sockpuppets and was trolling and also reported me for a 3RR violation based on what you considered to be edits of mine and alledged sockpuppets. None of those actions on your part are what I would construe to be polite. I can get the diffs for you if you need them. The edit summary you cite above is also a joke, and I guess I'll have to watch my terminology. Many people state in their edit summaries that a revert they are doing is to combat a POV. I've done that many times, even recently, though toned down considerably.MONGO 02:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do notice that I was careful back then to say that you probably would not, not that you could not, earn a Ph.D. Just going on demographics, most people in their mid-40s don't subsequently get doctorate degrees (not even of those who have Masters already). Well, not that I have actual stats in front of me, but I think that's safe.

"Don't feed the trolls" is a fairly familar expression from Usenet days; it sort of insinuates that those editors Hipocrite was "feeding" were trolls, but it's more like general advice not to engage in confrontation. But yeah... I can get more involved in contentions than I should. That's why if I am nominated for admin, I will decline the nomination; I don't have the right character for adminship. Well, maybe I'll support my nomination if I can honestly say I haven't been hot-headed in the prior six months of editing. :-)

Lulu, if you were here right now I would be inclined to give you a big handshake. I am convinced that most if not all of your commentary that I may have been offended by, was due to badgering from me and a few others. I do not contest that I acted harshly towards you and others involved in that merit mess. I don't know if I will be a great admin, but I do guarantee that until I feel comfortable with my ability to remain cool under pressure, the only things I can see myself using are the rollback feature to revert obvious vandalism, and the ability to be able to speedy delete nonsense articles. Your concerns over my ability to refrain from insulting others and pushing my own POV are fully understood and I acknowledge that these are my weak points that I will do my utmost to eliminate. Your humbleness with the above is heart felt and I hope that we can never again allow our petty differences to interfere with our mutual desire to make Wikipedia an even better place.MONGO 04:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, if you removed names not just because of people who joined who were clearly against the project(and there were at least a few) but because you had some disagreements with them, then I STRONGLY hope that you are genuine when you say that you were wrong to removed them. I think that you have changed though :-). As for 6 months vs. 2.5 months, I am not too sure. The worst thing I did was refactor a George Bush IP troll's comments, then he mirrored mine(classic troll tactic) and I edit warred. That was like my second day, and such things never happened again. Calling people "POV leftists" and removing votes of people who actually did join WfEM with good-faith is certainly a side of MONGO I had never seen before...but perhaps that is because he never does those things anymore...I hope his RfA passes, although he said he might remove it if he doesn't get 90%.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed their names because of the commentary attached to their membership which I felt violated WP:POINT. I was wrong to do so, but I did not remove their names because of them not agreeing with me. My perspective, however erroneous it may have been, was that they were being disruptive with such membership notations, which seemed to mock and or ridicule the project's scope and focus.MONGO 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy flower

AH...I see it:

"Those users(or socks) were clearly trolls."

That must be causing your frustration. Why didn't you refer me to this line ealier? I wrote that a like 2 AM and it does not reflect of the users in question as I was only thinking about that IP when I wrote it. Geesh...Sorry about that; I removed that line ASAP.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the brooms!

If nothing else, now I can at least clear the dust so the "swabbies" can finish the task. I feel better about Wikipedia than I ever have now that we have thrown off any residual and or lingering misgivings. I also want to again apologize for my severe rudeness to you in the past. I was doing a read through some of your edited work and did not see much controversy that would preclude you from being a fine Admin. Your comment that you needed to wait for six months of editing that would be free of controversy seems a harsh sentence to impose upon yourself. My honest guess is that you would pass an adminship nomination with over 90% yea votes. As you have less controversy around you than I do, I see no reason why you wouldn't succeed. I guess it's a matter of if you even want the admin thing and only you can decide that. Regardless, it sure feels good to know that you have forgiven me. See you around--MONGO 18:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tulips among the lotus leaves

Looks like we have others who would like to join in now. See here --HappyCamper 01:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Styles

The details of styles that should be used can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/ MOSBIO. The style usage for royalty has been clarified (thankfully). The rest still seems to be up in the air. It probably needs clarification but having "sorted" the royal styles issues I'll let others deal with other styles. lol

I hope that all helps. Best of luck, [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 22:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aeon Flux edits

You recently reverted an anonymous edit and marked it as vandalism. In fact I do believe it was a legitimate synopsis of one of the half-hour episodes, but I can't recall which one. I recognize the plot, however, so it wasn't vandalism, just misplaced. 23skidoo 01:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to do was restore a deletion of a bunch of material that started and stopped mid-sentence in the middle of the article. However, I may have run into an edit conflict—WP has been flakey today. I know nothing at all about Aeon Flux, so wasn't trying to make any editorial judgment at all... I had just seen the same IP address had made some disruptive edits on other pages I do follow, so clicked on the contribution history. I apologize if what I did wasn't what I intended to do. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish jurists

moving thread to article talk page

I really can't fathom what you are trying to do. There are many lists of Jews, and some have quite a few dubious entries that you would more usefully be employed querying. Why make such an offensive song and dance about my carefully researched entries? And it's absurd to say that official biographies of British people don't mention that they're Jewish; we don't work like that here. For example, the official biography of Professor Leon Mestel says nothing about his religion, although his father was a Rabbi (as I noted on Wikipedia) and he is orthodox enough to have refused the presidency of the Royal Astronomical Society because it would involve attending Friday night meetings.

Which lists do you feel have particular problems? I might go make an effort on those, if you think they are particularly unreliable. What I am trying to do is amazingly simple: make lists/categories on Wikipedia meet the same encyclopedic standards that articles need to. A lot of people try to sneak in facts that cannot stand up to article scrutiny by putting them (in sneaky indirect form) on lists/categories. I find that wholly unacceptable. You have pointedly not carefully researched any entries that I can see... you've baldly asserted facts without providing citations (if you have a big stack of citations in your top drawer, which you well may for all I know, that is of no value to WP readers).

I started paying attention to List of Jewish jurists mostly because I accidentally stumbled upon it on AfD. Actually, first thing is that I saw the old name "List of Jews in law" was named in an ugly way that was inconsistent with (most) other WP naming. So I moved the list to its current better name. And then in the AfD discussion I realized that other similar jurist lists would make sense, so I created List of African American jurists. Notice, BTW, how much more careful I am in my descriptions of names there than most lists are. The African American part is less often questioned or disputed (but sometimes); but on the other aspect, I made a careful effort to articulate why the individual is important as a jurist in the one-line description of what they did. Some people who are just kinda incidentally lawyers I left off, because it's not informative. Not to say the Jewish list has much problem there, the large majority of names (once the spurious Wiesenthal entry was removed) are well known for legal accomplishments.

Anyway, while I'm sure other lists have problems, even other Jewish lists, I happen to have some interest in law, so improving this one appeals to me. FWIW, I'm happy to accept circumlocutions in jurists WP articles. If it says Judge Foobar was bar mitzvah'd at so-and-so synogogue, I can make a reasonable inference even if the word "Jewish" doesn't appear verbatim. Or if someone "took citizenship in Israel". Or had a parent who was a rabbi. Or a few other obvious things (but not if they were simply, e.g., born in Long Island, which is largely Jewish).

I would have hoped we were on the same side. All that you are doing is providing ammunition for those who would want this and other similar lists deleted.
RachelBrown 17:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the side of bringing WP to the best encyclopedic standards. You can either be on that side, or hopefully find somewhere better suited to sectarian inclinations. I voted keep for the list of Jewish jurists; and will do so in general for "List of <ethno/religious>ish <Foo>ers" where the categories are somewhat, but not excessively, specific. But it would be a lot better for a list to not exist at all than to have it contain a lot of unverifiable content. And again, no "verifiable" is not what your personal friends tell you, it's what can be cited with URLs and ISBNs (and moreover, non-partisan ones, or at least multiple partisan ones). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Making threats can get you blocked, y'know

I have transferred the following from my user page, as I don't want my page cluttered with vandalism:

WP:POINT can get you blocked, y'know
I know you're trying to make a pedantic and obnoxious point over at List of African American jurists. But, let's just put it this way: Don't do it! If you violate WP:POINT persistently, I'll report the vandalism, or ask an admin to intervene. For passers-by, Poetlister is trying to indirectly argue that List of Jewish jurists doesn't require any evidence about whether a listed name is somebody Jewish, by vandalizing the AA list to remove names that are allegedly disputed.

As to Johnnie Cochran, your forced example is an utter failure. Aside from the suggestive picture on the page, we find:

By the late 1970s, he had made his name in the black community...

On the linked bio:

Cochran almost took the approach of a "black preacher" to the mostly African-American jury...

And on the WP page Category:African Americans.

I know the Cochran article does not contain the exact phrase "Johnnie Cochran is African American" verbatim. But it gives several obvious indicators. As I say (repeatedly) on Talk:List of Jewish jurists, any such reasonable inferential evidence is perfectly acceptable... it's just that the complete absence of any verifiable evidence is not. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

My reply is:
You may be bigger than I am, but making silly threats is no substitute for rational argument. You are of course totally misrepresenting my position. It is not that List of Jewish jurists requires no evidence, but that you are requiring a ridiculous type of evidence that you are not requiring for your other list. Black is not synonymous with African-American. That he has made a name in the Black community doesn't prove he's black, let alone African-American. Certainly, his ability to imitate a black preacher to an African-American jury doesn't prove anything.

If all this sounds silly, it's less so than your arguments. If appearing in category African-American is proof of anything, why isn't an appearance in List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners or List of British Jews?

And if you make any more threats to me, I shall report you. Poetlister 21:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to be kind to a newbie. I hadn't checked your edit count, and I assume you'll grow out of the foolish behavior. (Still, I confess I'm not sure whom you'll "report me" to. My mom? The principal? The "powers that be"? The WP cabal?)

Still, you should really try to learn about WP:POINT, and why it's not good practice.

Appearing on multiple lists is not really "evidence", especially not if the same editors put the same names in all the places. There's a joke about a man (or woman) who reads a shocking story in the newspaper. Unable to believe it, s/he buys more copies of the same newspaper to make sure they all confirm the story... Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I first started, one of the messages in the greeting was "Don't let grumpy users put you off". I'd never be so rude as to put an unsigned comment on someone's user page. - Poetlister 21:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Lawyers

I am not certain whether it is eligable for speedy or not, but as its on AfD I feel that any speedy deletion should be as a result of people voting for that. In my book at least, AfD trumps speedy deletion. Replacing a speedy tag with an AfD tag is a propper way to object to its speedy deletion, but replacing an AfD tag with a speedy tag is not acceptable. I'm an administrator working on clearing out Category:Candidates for speedy deletion at the moment, which is how I came accross the article. Thryduulf 04:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is highly likely that the AfD nominator (who incidentally, voted "strong delete" and failed to complete all the steps in an AfD nomination) was simply unaware of the option for a "speedy" nomination. I inserted the vote page template and listing on the log. I don't think User:EscapeArtistsNeverDie was acting in bad faith or anything, I just think that the incomplete nomination process indicated an unfamiliarity with the adminstrative tools.

If I were to get the AfD nominator to him/herself change it to a speedy, would you be OK with that. I'm not trying to step on toes here (well, except those of the somewhat cynical page creator, perhaps), but I really think speedy is the right nomination. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am the nominator, and I'm fine with speedy-deleting it. I changed it to speedy-delete.

(who incidentally, voted "strong delete" and failed to complete all the steps in an AfD nomination)

Yes I'm afraid I'm not aware of all the steps. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 04:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu, I am curious why you voted "keep" on Jewish jurists. It seems that we both know exactly where these lists are headed. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 04:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed in principle to pages like "List of <Nation>ish <Foo>ers". I say as much with my vote on the AfD for List of Jewish jurists. I do recognize that many editors behave badly in relation to "feel good" lists, and drop encyclopedic evidentiary standards. But with a head full of optimism, I can imagine such lists as being informative. In fact, that's why I created (and essentially created all of) List of African American jurists, which is well annoted and carefully checked, at least so far.

See my comments requesting support from an admin at User talk:Kbdank71#More "support group" lists, or generally Talk:List of Jewish jurists where I wrestle with other editors over getting evidence cited. I do understand that some editors vote, in perfectly good faith, to delete every "List of <Nation>ish <Foo>ers" article when it comes to AfD. Likewise categories, I'm perfectly happy with, e.g. Category:Norwegian painters.

As a rule, WP consensus seems to be to keep such pages... though the times when it is inconsistent drive me batty. For example, recently List of Jewish bankers was voted delete, while a whole bunch of other list of "Jewish Foos" were kept, or even "speedy kept". I know that some voters were worried about this being a stereotype and made foolish accusations of anti-semitism, but that's just silly politicking. There's nothing inherently slanderous about being a banker (well, maybe there is if you're a Marxist like me; but not for most people); and I can see it as nominally useful to browse through a list the notes the jobs of Alan Greenspan and Paul Wolfowitz. Then again, most bankers are not particular notable just for being bankers per se, so I'm not too worried about that list. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls

Yeah, I don't think that the user I sent the don't feed the trolls icon to was all that impressed so I told him he could remove it. Sometimes I need to not try to be "funny" as my sense of humor seems to offend rather than come across as funny.--MONGO 07:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish jurists -- Request for mediation

I've added List of Jewish jurists to the list of requests for mediation. Please take a look and make any comments that you wish. Thanks. --Nlu 16:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my anti-zionist jibe, I can see from your comments on the afd for jurists that you are not against jewish lists. Looking over this dispute again it seems pretty silly. All it needed was for you (or somebody i.e. me) to explain to Rachel that it was against Wikipedia policy to include people on lists or categories unless their inclusion was supported by information in the article. Actually I think that applies to categories but I'm not so sure it applies to lists, which might be thought of as drafts for categories. I think the source that Rachel was using is valid and reliable, but as you said something would be needed to be added to the relevant article stating that. I suppose we also then getting to problems on whether we should use the same category for jewish lists as is required for the Jewish American list i.e. a jewish grandparent. Arniep 23:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried explaining that about a dozen times! She didn't seem to want to hear that. Or maybe just not from me (since I'm the one that commented out some non-WP:V names); wanna try explaining it? You might come across in a more kindly fashion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK maybe you did mention it specifically at 17:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC) but that was after you had made a lot of assumptions (which could be interpreted as an attack) about Rachel's motives for working on the list at 22:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC) which I think basically inflamed the whole discussion. Arniep 00:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll confess whatever faults of presentation you might like... but think there's any chance you could convince RachelBrown to stop her revert war and actually read (and follow) WP:V? I don't care whether she likes me—for that matter I also don't even care if you (or whatever WP editor)—likes me; I just want the page to be cleaned up to encyclopedic standards. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm not sure this is ideal "presentation" either: you're a believer in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. - RachelBrown 17:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC) It's hard to take someone all that seriously when at the first sign of disagreement they accuse other editors of such things. So of course the article would be better off without her obstructionism and confrontation; but if she insists on staying there, hopefully she can learn what WP:V is. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before I think it was your comments 22:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC) that really inflamed things, I think it would have been better if you had just placed a note on Rachel's user page explaining that the lists need to be backed up by information in articles, rather than making the above rant about personal blogs, support groups etc. then we could have avoided this pointless confrontation. Arniep 02:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm 99.5% sure you're wrong on this. I've gone through exactly the same thing multiple times before: lists that were created/maintained by editors with an agenda to get names of people "like them" listed. In my experience, it requires a certain confrontation and intervention to shake those editors out of their unencyclopedic habits... precisely because those editors really do think of the "identity politics" lists like support groups. This blowup went better than my last ones precisely because of the lesson I learned about stating the issue up-front. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being a bit too presumptive about people's intentions. Anyway Rachel has decided to go ahead with the mediation. Arniep 14:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT criminals

I would appreciate if you could think again on this, this category is a nonsense because gay people have lived in many eras and many countries with different laws, I really don't see how this category can give any meaningful or accurate information (please see my comments on the cfd page also) Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:LGBT_criminals. Arniep 23:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I think the cat is OK. But it needs a description that indicates its limited purpose. Of course I don't want every gay person who lives in a country that outlaws their sexual behavior to be listed. And I also don't want LGBT people who are notable for other reasons to be listed: if my colleague Judith Butler were to run a stoplight, I hardly think she should get in the category (or even if she were to murder someone, for that matter... not that I think she'll do either). Or if I were to find out that Jeffrey Skilling were gay, that would hardly have anything to do with his criminal frauds (which is pretty much what he's notable for).

OTOH, there are a few criminals, esepcially really serious crimes like multiple murders, where someone's sexual orientation has notable connection to their criminality. Andrew Cunanan or Jeffrey Dahmer seem to motivate this category.

I think many gay people would be offended that you are suggesting that Jeffrey Dahmer engaged in normal homosexual behaviour and with Andrew Cunanan it doesn't even mention that he's gay in the article. Arniep 00:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely serial killers are not "normal". But Dahmer's murders were pretty clearly connected with his extremely twisted and horrible sexuality. Actually, thinking of it, I guess if you could figure out a category for criminality and sexuality, that might be better. It's not quite "sex crimes" per se; I'm not quite sure of the wording. But obviously there have been heterosexual serial killers that connected with their sexuality. But it's a bit moot, the category isn't going to be deleted, it's going to get voted "no consensus"... a vote or two changed is't going to change it.

He should be placed in categories which describe his crimes specifically, i.e. people who killed people with their permission, people who killed people for sexual gratification, and cannibals.

oops I was getting confused with the german guy Armin Meiwes so the first thing wouldn't apply to Dahmer obviously. Arniep 14:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed, actually, that List of Jewish criminals is probably getting deleted; the Purple gang and Murder, Inc. seem pretty notable, and partially as being largely/mostly Jewish groups. No one tries to pretend that Cosa Nostra isn't mostly an Italian organization. What's different about Jewish gangs? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They should go in a specific category like Category:Jewish-American mobsters, equivalent of Category:Italian-American mobsters and Category:Polish-American mobsters. Regards Arniep 13:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... quite right. I had not seen that category. That seems to eliminate any need for the list (which was just deleted, as expected). Well good... I can get my relatives in that cat :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish lists for deletion

these are all nominated for deletion by User:Pilatus: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_19#List_of_Jewish_chess_players Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_19#List_of_Jews_in_sports Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_20#List_of_Jewish_Recipients_of_National_Medal_of_Science. Regards Arniep 14:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Z. & H.

Ok, that sentence could be read as an implicit "according to H.", but I'm not convinced that is the right way to say it in an encyclopedia... I agree with you that Holbo is probably not the most notable philosopher to criticize Zizek, but maybe it's better to keep the reference there until we can replace it with a similar critique by someone more prominent - it is not an unusual view on Z., so it should be represented, I think. David Sneek 09:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO RfA part two

There is a part of me that feels guilty at this point and I have left you for last to discuss my recent promotion to admin. I didn't want to sneak by with a bare concensus...it feels lousy but I think I deserved no better. I am hoping you fully recognize that this isn't a "win" for me as I am not in competition against anyone, especially you. My only plans for the new tools, at least for awhile, are to rollback vandalism and to speedy nonsense articles. I have no plans to use the tools for anything political or controversial.

The voting thing is what matters, as it shows a general approval level among your peers as to your actions in this forum. I will always be one of those that barely made it, not the one that got promoted by a landslide. While I am glad things were brought to my attention and made adamently clear that some have issue with me, I wish there had been no opposition. That there was is my fault, and is not the fault of those that spoke up. I promise you this and that is I will do all I can to ensure you know that I can be trusted to do the right thing.--MONGO 10:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your adminship, MONGO. I am sure you will do an excellent job with it. It appears that in the process of the RfA vote you soothed over your conflicts with many "oppose" voters, who either withdrew their votes or even changed to support. That shows a good ability to work with other editors, IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]