Jump to content

User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs) at 06:11, 20 April 2006 (Karl ain't Charlie). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Under bridges is a good place for trolls
File:Herooflabor.jpg
Hero of Wikipedia

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

Award

In appreciation for your efforts to make Glacier retreat a better article...I present you with this image of Eyjafjallajökull Glacier located in Iceland. Excellent work! --MONGO 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a beautiful picture! I've only ever seen some small glaciers in Colorado or Wyoming... but my little interest that you lured over to Glacier retreat makes me want to see some of these major ones in person. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat amusing.

Wouldn't you think that, if your account were blocked and you were upset about it, you'd say "Why was my account just blocked?" :-) (No, don't worry; I'm not talking about you!) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... I reckon this is something about the User:Waya sahoni block that was unfortunately lifted by a different admin than the one who placed it? Certainly, if my account were blocked, I would not "ask": They whore people through the site and rip them off, then when they are done with you, they cast you away. What do you expect? Wales is a porn dealer, that's where his money comes from.
But I guess since I haven't ever violated WP:LEGAL, WP:NPA, WP:SOCK, or massive copyvio, I would be puzzled by a block indeed.
Sure, but would you refer to the block as being of "this account" or "my account"? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I honestly don't know what observation you're making here. Did I use the phrases "this account" or "my account" somewhere in the wrong way? It's quite possible I made a "thinko" in some note... my brain is getting too old to control my fingers properly :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being so coy. I assumed you would have seen Waya's comments on his talk page since the block. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was once blocked by an admin with a bit of a grudge against me for a rather borderline 3RR claim; that annoyed me, it's true. And it lasted for 24 hours, which is longer than Waya sahoni was blocked, unfortunately. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The block was recently reinstated for 1 week, with the possibility of being indefinite. --BWD (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good. I hadn't seen that. (I actually strayed from my computer for a few hours... bad editor! :-)). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Jeff Merkey's proposed autobiography

An editor has proposed Talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Jeff Merkey's proposed autobiography for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge about the question discussed on the RfC. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jerry Jones

Every now and then an editor comes along intent on designating Jewish criminals, and on promoting Stormfront. User:Jerry Jones seems to be such an editor. I was also watching the activities of User:JJstroker who, as you mentioned, has now stopped editing. On my list of things "to do" is review all of "Stroker"'s contributions. I saw some go by that were inappropriate. "Jones" is a bit reminiscent of user:Vulturell, who also liked to categorize Jews. I don't know that any of these three are the same person, but they do seem to have similar agendas. Thanks for noticing the behavior - let's both keep our eyes open for careless edits. -Will Beback 19:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there seem to be two rather distinct types of "label the Jews" editors. One type is the Jewish-identity folks who think that calling someone Jewish is just the most swell thing you can possibly say about them. Actually, I think it's more along the lines of identitarian editors thinking "I'm Jewish and I feel better about myself if I label all these famous (and generally 'good') people as being Jewish". A lot of that goes on in "List of Jewish X" places, more than on the biographies themselves. In fact, I participated in WP:LISTS in good measure because of the poor evidentiary standards used to include names on the Jewish lists (e.g. the claim is not even close to meeting WP:V by article standards, so the Jewish-identity editors think it's easier to smuggle them onto lists than to get a change accepted on the biography itself. There was a gaggle of now-blocked sockpuppets who were doing this a while back (User:RachelBrown, User:Poetlister, etc); Vulturell is/was on the side of these overly inclusive Jewish lists, but I have no reason to think s/he is actually in the sockpuppet army (just of similar thinking).
The second type of editors is the neo-Nazis who think that calling someone Jewish is a blood libel, and readers must be made aware of the insidious influence of all these Jewish politicians, academics, etc. I have a strong hunch that those folks have their own "lists of jews" that circulate in those white supremacist circles, and that they try to apply to Wikipedia. These editors mostly insert the word "Jewish" (usually Wikilinked, I suppose because we wouldn't know what it meant) in the first few words of the lead. The folks described as Jewish by these editors are almost always left-leaning, some even communists and the like, but are not necessarily Jewish. For example, JJstroker was trying to do this to Gus Hall. There's probably something slightly disturbing about the fact that the neo-Nazis seem to be more accurate just as a raw percentage than do the Jewish-identitarians.
The neo-Nazis put the adjective "Jewish" where it is utterly irrelevant to the article. I mostly just see the stuff going on at all because of a couple articles I watch. One is Judith Butler, who is a philosopher I like (and have met a couple times, FWIW; that's my doctoral area). I think Butler is actually not Jewish at all; but maybe she is, I don't really either know or care. Certainly she doesn't write anything with a Jewish focus, nor make any kind of public point of such a thing (supposing it is true at all). Or maybe it's one of those things that the Jewish-identitarians like too that one of her great-grandparents was Jewish or something. Certainly, there's nothing in the article text that mentions the matter, nor should there be. So the lead generally reads something like:
  • Judith Butler is a prominent post-structuralist philosopher...
Then the labellers come along and change it to something like:
  • Judith Butler is a Jewish post-structuralist philosopher...
Sometimes it's alarmingly hard to tell which type a given editor is when they do this stuff. But I think the fact Jerry Jones added a few affectionate modifications to descriptions of the KKK, Stormfront, and friends is a pretty good clue. And a bunch of them also seem to have a weird obsession with Christianizing Thomas Jefferson (which is what makes me think of sockpuppetry). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lulu, it has now been accepted that RachelBrown, Poetlister etc. were not sock puppets and they have all been unblocked. I do agree with most of the rest of the above though. I added you to Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. Arniep 21:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad about her/their unblocking. But at least she hasn't created any new flamewars anywhere I currently edit. It looks like that really awful Zordrac remains blocked at least. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel has been unblocked but no longer edits so you're safe. Arniep 18:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment?

I would value your opinion on this RfC: Talk:Prem_Rawat#RFC_summary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a tribunal

Would you be able to write up some wording to add to WP:NOT? See Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_tribunal ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good project. But give me until tomorrow to work on it. It's certainly a false sentiment I see expressed a lot (i.e. calls for "justice"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Your sharp plume will be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zizek page

The article links have been deleted and reduced to two links to pages which each link to many Zizek articles. This is because Wikipedia is not a link farm. If the articles are in the public domain then I suggest you start a Zizek page at Wikisource, then add a Wikisource template link near the bottom of the Wikipedia article. Thanks. Ramanpotential 08:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I feel that accusing me of sock puppetry definitely amounts to a personal attack ("Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom") and request that you cease and apologise, now. You can consider this post the first recommended step under WP:DR, if you do not reply positively within 24 hours I will take it further. Thankyou. Ramanpotential 23:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB also please remove my "quote" from your user page. Ramanpotential 00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Ramanpotential, that mediation would probably be a good idea. Your rapid escalation to personal attacks over what is, in the end, a minor editing disagreement, was enormously unpleasant to have to deal with; and more importantly, it is disruptive of editing. I guess you have something against Slavoj Zizek, which seems odd, but which I really don't care about one way or the other. Good articles can perfectly well be edited by editors who are not fond of the subject matter. I have some respect for Zizek as a thinker/writer, but certainly not uncritical; and I don't think the current article (with or without the "Critique" seciton) is particularly great... but I do hate to see the article made worse by off-kilter POV-mongering.
Certainly I fully believe in utter sincerity that you have edited using the mentioned IP address, and more recently from the account User:ShowsOn (the latter name presumably intended as a provocation). The quick backpedalling from claiming to have no connection to an IP address is to claiming it's not you but a close friend of yours is about a 99% certainty indicator of sockpuppetry; that extra 1% is probably covered by the almost identical tone and wording in the comments made from the accounts. The thing is, the use of multiple accounts is not even against any policy or guideline in itself, except when it's used to rig a vote (which it was not)... the only actual problem is your persistent personal attacks.
I looked, a bit impressionistically, through some of your edit history, and at a glance it seems perfectly fine to me. Actually, there's nothing really bad in your edits to the Zizek article, only on its talk page (and a few other talk pages). I just don't really get your need to resort to personal attacks at the first whiff of disagreement on content/focus. Maybe a mediator could help sort it out. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed to have "no connection" with the IP address, just that it wasn't me. Anything else is your interpretation... and a genuinely postmodern interpretation it is indeed. In hindsight full disclosure early on would have been good but the lack thereof had no malicious motives. The username "ShowsOn" is nothing more than a contraction of the user's real name, by the way.
What personal attacks? You're yet to point out exactly what they are, just as you're yet to point out what the problems are with the arguments against Zizek. So I obviously touched a raw nerve in mentioning that you have a self-created article of extremely questionable validity, because I believe it impugns your credibility especially when "notability" is an issue at hand. There is a difference between having a sore point brought up and being personally attacked, however.
I am still awaiting your apology, and your removal of my statement from your user page. Ramanpotential 04:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal attacks were pointed out many times on the Zizek talk page. Basically, nearly every single comment you've put there since you started editing that article. I even made it so painfully explicit in some examples as to quote your prior comment, and annotate the fact it was a personal attack. You can pretend you didn't make the comments which you did as much as you like, but WP keeps a history. Actually, if you want another example of a personal attack, please refer to the comment you make immediately above. Obviously, I detail in painful exactness what the problems with the "critique" section are/were... please read Talk:Slavoj Zizek, I do not wish to repeat everything I wrote there.
Obviously, the comments you make on user talk pages are licensed as GFDL, so you have no claim for their removal. I found the Spoonerism sufficiently charming that I think it merits a place in the "fun quotes". I still can't quite fathom why you think I should apologize for asking you not to engage in personal attacks, but I don't reckon that's going to happen. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not specifically point out any personal attacks with reference to anything written in WP:NPA. You have of course repeated statements you consider personal attacks, but that is not the same thing. I, however, have a genuine grievance with you about your constant accusations that I have engaged in sock puppetry.
I'm not asking for you to apologise for "asking (me) not to engage in personal attacks", because it's not the most important matter to me. I ask you to apologise for accusing me of sock puppetry thereby besmirching my name on this fine website which I intend to be part of for many years to come. Ramanpotential 04:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJstroker and Jerry Jones

CheckUser confirms they are most likely the same editor. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Input request

Lulu, I'd appreciate your input at Talk:Palestinian_people#Middle_East_Forum_link. Thanks Arniep 00:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated

I renominated Glacier retreat here is the latest nomination...none of the article as it stands would have happened had you not contributed as much as you did. You deserve a lot of credit.--MONGO 11:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also will get back to you about your request sometime tonight...promise!--MONGO 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Žižek comment

I see your point about the criticism article meeting WP:V. I hope you can find a way to make it clear to readers of that article that this criticism is not beyond the ordinary level of criticism that someone of his status (whatever status that is) typically receives. KSchutte 19:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a way to phrase that in the article, I would greatly appreciate it. I think, unfortunately, that if I were to try it, Ramanpotential would take it as an occasion for more flamefests and random reversions. He's got some sort of vendetta about me, for reasons I almost entirely fail to understand. I think he believes I'm some sort of "moral proxy" for Zizek, whom he dislikes for some reason (probably because a local professor told him to).
I don't think you have to know anything about Zizek specifically to make such contextualization. Basically, Zizek is one of the half-dozen or so most prominent living thinkers in the "continental" philosophy. So maybe you could compare him to Dennett, or Searle, or Peter Singer in analytic circles. However, Zizek, unlike most philosophers, of whatever tradition, writes both a huge number of books, and mostly books that are (at least superficially) accessible to a more general readership (but past a superficial level, difficult to understand for even the most technical readership... he's a good writer, whatever else he may be wrong or right about; almost like Putnam, but in a completely different way).
While any thinker of moderate note, especially of cross-disciplinary or "popular" notoriety, has various critics, Zizek isn't especially "controversial" as such. Of course, there's a certain school of analytic philosophy that assumes that anyone who writes about Lacan, or Marx, or Hegel, must by talking nonsense, but that applies uniformly to a variety of colleagues of Zizek... he's not uniquely nonsensical from such a vantage. The critiques on WP are the work of two or three editors; and of those, one IP address is either another name for Ramanpotential (my working hypothesis) or a "friend and colleague" of Ramanpotential (his statement on the matter). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extending WP:NPA

Would you care to comment at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Extension? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Kristeva

I know zilch about Kristeva, over and above the content of a few interviews and a lot of pseudish talk passing my head. Nor was I the person who added the 'Fashionable Nonsense' quote to her article. However, since there does seem to be a school of thought that's uncomplimentary of her theories, is it unreasonable for a NPOV article to cite such a view as an alternative position? Perhaps that wasn't the best chosen citation. Just wondered what you think and whether you could suggest more useful alternative? Mazzy 10:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that a reference to Fashionable Nonsense was added rather indiscriminately to probably most everone the authors of that vaguely mention... which is to say, anyone who is vaguely post-modern, Lacanian, etc. That's really out of keeping with academic biographies, to my mind.
Putting in a (brief) amount of commentary that criticized Kristeva's thinking specifically would be fine. Hell, I've published minor critique of her (I'm entirely non-notable though, nothing that should be included). But a general "critique by association" is not encyclopedic or NPOV. Read WP:NPOV, it doesn't say to include every possible viewpoint, only significant and notable ones. We already say Kristeva is post-structuralist and Lacanian (or at least influenced by those), it's just vacant belaboring to add "... and therefore people who dislike post-structuralism as a general principle dislike Kristeva".
The analogy here would be including a critique of Michael Green (physicist) that wasn't his disagreements with other cosmologists in physics, but was the perspective of new earth creationist Christians. I mean, yeah, in some tortured sense, the creationists disagree with Green; and they're even notable enough for their own articles. But a physics article should have comments from physicists. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. That sounds like a detailed, reasoned argument to me... :-) Mazzy 12:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your book

And I have to say that it is very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimil (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

You are a a major contributor to Retreat of glaciers since 1850 which is now a Featured article....good work!--MONGO 06:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lulu! I sometimes see people moving section links to the top of the section, like you did recently at Python programming language#Generator expressions and List comprehension#Forms of list comprehension. Is that a Wikipedia policy? My style has been to put a main article link to the top and a further information link to the bottom, which would be logical in the sense that more general information may be needed before reading the section and more specific after. At least in the case of List comprehension, it doesn't read well anymore, to me. --TuukkaH 07:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike the look of ancillary links at bottom of a section. I've seen it rarely enough, that I'm pretty sure it's contrary to WP:STYLE, somewhere or another. I'll try to dig through the guidelines tomorrow, and see if I can find the specific recommendatin. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you knidly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will like to clear any wrong ideas you may have about this policy. You seem to be concerned that the policy would stop the specified things to be done for reasons unrelated to censorship such as NPOV, verifiability etc. The policy explicitly states that the only using decency or offensiveness as an editorial reason is prohibited as it is subjective and culturally rlative. Other concerns such as NPOV are perfectly valid reasons. Please consider reviewing your stand in this light. Feel free to contact me for any further clarifications. Thank you. Loom91 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did review the proposal, and believe my characterization in voting oppose is correct. As worded (and as much as I can imagine any tweak achieving), it invites more trouble than it solves the problems it tries to address. Of course I agree with the general dictum "censorship is bad", but I don't think it can be made into a useful and generalized WP policy. There is simply too much context for each article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr Monicasdude

As one of the advocates of the first RfC, you may be interested in having a look at this. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

peer review is here : WP:PR. normally people put up their articles there first before putting it at FAC, but not always. Zzzzz 08:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you get a good response and sometimes you don't. The glacier article got lots of good feedback, but what I got for Shoshone was meager. IN the case of the latter, the FAC process was when the best changes happened.--MONGO 08:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

Sort of like Wikipedias front cover...Retreat of glaciers since 1850 will be on the Main page on 4/18/06 [1]...so don't change that channel.--MONGO 11:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way cool! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 00:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted computing

Hiya

Im away a bit, may not be concentrating on it. I removed the section since it was basically, 2 different lists *both* purporting to be "what is needed for trusted computing". If you can look at both and be clear what is actually needed for TC, and what the rest of those 2 lists is talking about instead, and dump it on the talk page or something? Might be best. keep in touch :) FT2 (Talk) 02:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to sort through it. I agree there was some redundancy, and the flow wasn't great. But the version of the list you deleted was better annotated than the one you kept, and contained several extra concepts. It's in the edit history though, so I'll try to work up a merged version. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horowitz and Churchill

Yeman, that recording shows what is really at the end of de fork... how bad does that DH sound?? what a contrast between the two. -- max rspct leave a message 19:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't listened to the debate... and don't reckon I will. I don't think I could bear to force myself to listen to Horowitz for however long the recording is. I actually heard about the upcoming debate (from my mother) a little while back... I was a bit disappointed that Churchill would stoop to granting Horowitz more credence than he deserves by agreeing to the forum. Your comment seems to suggest my initial impression was right. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should.. It's joyful (horrifically so) to listen to.. Horowitz degenerates exorcist-stylee quite early on. -- max rspct leave a message 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's your french? Tell me this is a joke: [2] - check his contribs -- max rspct leave a message 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My French is poor. But I think it's just someone else named Horowitz (but probably with a first name that isn't David), who has some interest in communist topics. Don't let DH besmirch the otherwise perfectly respectable family name :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is "Charlie" the same as "Karl" though?! Of course I am a great admirer of Freddie Demuth, but the change of first name makes it too indirect. (My SO was treasurer of the Freddie Demuth Fan Club back at Kent State :-)). "Charlie M." makes me think of maybe Mingus, or Manson (still in the "M"s, FWIW). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Žižek hullabaloo

Hello Lulu, just a note to say keep up the good work. I happened across your debate with Ramanpotential on the Žižek page and found it pretty strange. The Holbo article in particular was an amusing attempt to come up with something notable. Continental theory pages on wikipedia seem pretty susceptible to this sort of thing, unfortunately...the analytic stranglehold can be depressing at times. That's it. Deleuze 13:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm experiencing a milder example of the same damn thing right now on the Judith Butler page too. It is so frustrutating that utterly non-notable criticism is recruited in an alleged concern for "present all sides". I'm starting to think there really ought to be some clarification to the policy/guidelines that explains there isn't an "all sides" to an academic biography, at least not in a general case. That is: just because you write "Bio subject argues X, Y and Z" to explain their thought; that does not mean we have to present arguments for not-X, not-Y, and not-Z in the same article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted computing

There is no reason given for removing the merge and POV-tag in Trusted computing. Please give a reason. 1() 09:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merge tag—well, actually both tags—have been there quite a long time without any support or discussion. If consensus cannot be reached for a merge, the tag is removed; it's not a permanent feature of an article. The POV is a slightly different issue, but the fact there has not been any discussion relating to it for weeks or months also indicates the tag no longer belongs there (at least for now). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lulu, as you say yourself the POV has not been removed. POV does not have a half-life and magically remove itself, so I suggest you replace the page and help us all work towards a more neutral article. StephenFalken 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The POV tag isn't something meant as a permanent box for an article. It's not like a navigation template or project tag. The POV tag should only be used for some specific and addressable issue, and it should be left in place only while discussion of the issue is currently ongoing (and it must be discussion of the same issue, not "someone has some issue or another to discuss"). If you think an article is permanently and fatally POV, that's an appropriate situation for an AfD nomination, not for a POV tag.
I've seen the POV tag used in far too many places where it was really intended as a sort of critical meta-commentary on the topic of the article, rather than as an actual aid in the editing process. And the Trusted computing article has definitely reached that point: the tag has been there (it seems like) forever, without anyone engaging in ongoing discussion about how to fix some identiable concern. I agree the topic is generally controversial... and new editors who are either vehemently anti-TC or strongly pro-TC come along all the time, each unhappy about the middle ground the article tows. But that general situation is true of many articles that are controversial in some way. Like many articles, the TC article sways a bit to each side as new editors come along, but it tends to come back to the middle after a while.
I guess what it amounts to, excuse my French, is: "Put up or shut up!" That is, if you have a specific concern, raise it on the talk page. And by specific, I don't mean that the article seems vaguely (pro/anti-)TC to you; rather, some identifiable claims in particular paragraphs. Moreover, try to suggest how to fix the problem. Only after that's been tried does the POV tag start to become appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User marxist/Category:Marxist Wikipedians

Lulu, on most category pages the userbox and detail about how to subscribe to it appears. It seems to me to be entirely appropriate. Could you tell me why you don't like it so? Mgekelly - Talk 09:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen similar explanation of "how to use userboxes" on any other category pages. Most, certainly, do not have such a thing. However, I looked around after your note, and saw some others that do have the similar instructions (and that have for at least several months, rather than just added yesterday). FWIW, I actually still don't really like that, since instructions and a category feel like they should be in separate namespaces (or on the talk page, like I did). But I'm certainly not going to change it elsewhere, nor is it something worth trying to engage in some administrative discussion about, so I reverted to your version of the page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ta! Mgekelly - Talk 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters&oldid=49246632"