Revision as of 23:18, 30 January 2010

Boxes

This user has published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals.

This user is a professional writer or journalist.

Content contributed by this user is released into the public domain.

According to the political compass this user is Economic Left (-8.12) and Social Libertarian (-8.72).

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

29 ǁ 30 ǁ

Sandbox

• /Ref practice
• /Zordrac
• /silver lining
• /odd creature
• /tmp
• /Block Log
• /Legacy of Harvey Milk

New Stuff

Obama Page

Hello, I saw you'd been making some edits to the Obama page at the same time I'm making some as well. While I won't necessarily disagree with the edits, and do think the page needs changing (haven't had a chance to view most of your edits yet), I would recommend you tread carefully here. The article is on probation right now and I got in trouble the first time editing it. They like everything run by first on the talk page. Of course, the edit boldly rule for Misplaced Pages may allow you to do this, but just warning you as it could mean similar trouble to what I experienced. Also, I answered on the Obama talk page to let you know I may have to revert an edit since one of the proposed edits of mine will change the 04 election section and may provide more comprehensive info about Keyes and the results to put them more in perspective. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Knee-jerk rallying behind UN's Richard Goldstone

Lulu of the Lotus-eaters, you have wrongfully deleted encyclopedic value information concerning the high-level controversy over Goldstone's documented aspirations to head the United Nations. This story was reported in two articles by the authoritative Guardian newspaper, and became a matter of public dispute between Goldstone and S. African president de Klerk. The matter of Goldstone's reported UN career aspirations is of strong encycolopedic value given that Goldstone came to accept a UN job about which many questions were raised.

While the matter may not reflect as favorably on Goldstone as the list of his awards, there is every reason to include this newsworthy controversy, and none to exclude it. Nor is there anything in the quotes from President de Klerk, Goldstone and The Guardian to suggest inclusion of this story has any bearing to a "soapbox."

Please recall the WP policies and principles of neutrality. Doing so is advisable before deleting entries that do not confirm with your positions toward one or another country, and could help contribute to greater mutual undertandingby on all sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.25.133 (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thank you for the welcome back message. Be assured that we are in complete agreement with respect to the new Keyes fan. I'd also suggest you keep an eye on User:Róbert Gida, who reminds me an awful lot of these folks (particularly the former). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Obamaism

Hello Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Obamaism, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No speedy criteria apply which is why it is at RfD. . Thank you. Nancy 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sparkline

Hey LotLE, have you been able to work on the sparkline you proposed on the Obama talk page? I am interested to see how it would turn out. Hope the holidays have been good for you! Arkon (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not put one together, at least yet. My feeling is that, despite your positive comment, the inclusion of this element would probably be rejected by the consensus of editors, which makes me less enthusiastic about doing the work of putting one together (I'd have to dig up tabular data on polling, and find some software that would generate the sparkline). That's a somewhat bigger quantum of work than changing just some words :-). Maybe I'll get around to it though. LotLE×talk 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tattoo

Sorry you didn't like the pick I put on the tat page. I wasn't trying to do something malicious, I assure you. I did think it was strange that not once was there a picture of a standard upper-arm tattoo on the page, nor even a mention of this, arguably the most common place to get a modern tattoo. Any thoughts on how to remedy this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qfl247 (talk • contribs)

What you added appears to simply be a vanity picture of yourself. As I indicated in my edit comment, it is not particularly germane to the section where you put it. Moreover, the tattoo design does not stand out as anything special for article purposes, and the composition of the photo is fairly bad. LotLE×talk 23:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Puddle thinking merge

Currently, you're the only editor opposing the merge. Is the matter still of interest to you? If it is, I'd like to continue the discussion, otherwise I'll presume that you accept the merge as consensus. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your username.

I like it. :)--SexonfireKOL2010 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC) --SexonfireKOL2010 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SexonfireKOL2010 (talk • contribs)

Dorrsk is my username, and I found you through the neutral point of view page link. I get the feeling you'd be the right person to ask, since your mini bio has the same kind of google map link I'd put on mine if I made a habit of editing. I found a page, saw some language that was very biased, and edited it. Then I found out that someone undid the change, I changed it back and apparently the one who changed it has some power to declare whatever isn't his own words to be vandalism. I checked out his story and turns out the owner of a company that is part of a larger arms dealer for U.S. weapons, vehicles, and munitions decided he would take control over editing information about various explosives and military related articles which quickly explained where the bias came from and why it would be useless to argue with him. I stopped working on that issue upon the final warning notice, and I was wondering if you had any advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorrsk (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that another editor has a conflict of interest in editing an article, definitely follow the advice in that guideline in resolving the issue. LotLE×talk 07:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Simple Instant Messenger. Pcap ping 04:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please correct your nomination to remove the misrepresentation of my closing statement.

Here Spartaz 11:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Simple Spreadsheet. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Joe Chill (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of being pointy by putting the same template on my talk page when I never said anything like you did, answer my questions on the AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you would state relevant evidence on AfD discussions, rather than snotty pokes at editors who find notability of topics you nominate, it would be a lot easier to imagine good faith on your part. LotLE×talk 01:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You're only assuming bad faith because I use guidelines and you would rather ignore them! You can't even answer my questions on the AfD! I never say snotty things in AfD. I think that you might be confusing me with users like Miami and his buddy Smerdis. Joe Chill (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines you refer to are ones that I helped write many years before you first edited Misplaced Pages. Your behavior is unseemly and unhelpful. Just saying "ignore notability" is not a useful AfD approach. LotLE×talk 01:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Google Groups isn't a reliable source and free software doesn't equal automatic notability, so you seem to forget your own words or decided not to go by them which isn't helpful. Joe Chill (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we call a truce on this, Joe Chill? You are probably right, to a large degree, that I have lumped together mentally the comments of several frequent Delete !voters on software AfDs. That's not fair to you.

On the other hand, I do find it confrontational and unhelpful to have each Keep !vote I make on those discussions immediately followed by a generic retort "No, what you claimed is notable isn't notable." It's already understood perfectly well from your own !vote what your opinion is, and per-comment peanut-gallery retorts are generally unhelpful. There might be cases where such a per-comment disagreement is relevant: e.g. if a certain source is specifically biased or WP:COI in a way I might not have been aware of, that might make me reconsider the evidence. But an automatic claim that I don't understand WP:N really isn't productive. LotLE×talk 18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Truce. By the way, I have rescued multiple software articles from AfD. Most of them were nominated by either JBsupreme, Miami, and Smerdis. Miami and Smerdis have a definite agenda to get rid of free software articles. Joe Chill (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Not really" clauses

I have reverted your contribution because I do not feel the notes are "not really clauses". Everything listed in the inclusion criteria really do allow subjects that fit them have an article. Rather, they clarify certain actions (such as listing trivia) do not satisfy notability, which otherwise would be considered to under a broad interpretation of the text. I decided to put them below inclusion for organizational purposes, and they are equivalent to footnotes. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree and I am willing to rework the wording of the section. (I do think that having to exclude certain situations from the original definition is undesirable) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes in a guideline are really never done in the way you have done there. They are very difficult to read and parse, and distracting from the principles actually being evinced. I have re-edited with smaller changes that put the text in main flow. I believe larger edits are needed, but let's start with that. LotLE×talk 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Finding sources for old FOSS

Linuxtoday.com is good way to find articles about old FOSS. They have article summaries going back to 2000 or so, even for defunct sites. You can then plug the URL in archive.org. (I hope Joe Chill is still watching this page too.) Pcap ping 10:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a good suggestion for research into sourcing of FOSS articles. Best wishes.

I think another good site is my long-time employer (well, contracting company really), IBM developerWorks. We have not written about as many products as Linux Today has (since when covered, it tends to be at lengthier article focus), but there is a good bit. And IBM seems to do a decent job of keeping their old archives alive. LotLE×talk 10:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I stopped watching it, but I checked back. Thanks for the link. Joe Chill (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And Lulu, please stop confusing with JBsupreme (I saw your removed comment). Joe Chill (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability (software)

Hello, In the deletion review Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#HOCR_.28software.29 I used a reference to Misplaced Pages:Notability (software). Because you are one of the contributors of Misplaced Pages:Notability (software) , you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kzamir (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ACORN

I apologize for lumping you with a POV editor during my revert. Your edit made me think about another editor. This edit is beyond unreasonable. I would think that most ACORN employees would denounce the action of this branch. Am I wrong? If so, should we express the sources that say it's a fluke. Doesn't much matter, when we read our sources. ThinkEnemies (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Barney Frank

Lulu, please participate in the discussion section rather than making unilateral reverts. If you would like to discuss the merits of the edits to the Fannie Mae section you are encouraged to participate, however, when you make unilateral reverts and ignore invitations to join in the dialogue it circumvents the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Thank you.Lordvolton (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. I concur with other editors that WP:BLP violations are not allowed, and have now stated so on Talk:Barney Frank. LotLE×talk 23:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I always look for sources. You bad faith assuming dick. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered looking in Google searches, or in a library, rather than only under rocks in your backyard?! Best wishes. LotLE×talk 23:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I look in Google, Google Books, and Google News. We just have different opinions on notability. "rather than only under rocks in your backyard?". Dick. Troll. Joe Chill (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could formulate responses on AfD's that do not so closely resemble a "deletebot". Always voting delete to every topic, with no discussion of the nature of the software, nor any indication whatsoever that you have looked for sources, and always using exactly the same boilerplate phrase, looks a lot more like WP:POINT or WP:SOAPBOX than it does like good faith. LotLE×talk 23:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey troll, I even say that I look for sources. Saying that I don't is assuming bad faith. Joe Chill (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Joe Chill, I simply do not believe you have looked for sources prior to most of those rapid and boilerplate !votes. Using the word "troll" is not a good substitute for telling the truth, to my mind. LotLE×talk 23:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'll always be a bad faith assuming dickish troll. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe, I had my own disputes with Lulu; he is a little in your face, but there's no need to call him names... Pcap ping 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)