Misplaced Pages

User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:52, 27 January 2006 editDoug Bell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,585 editsm typos← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:33, 12 December 2023 edit undoDonner60 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers235,987 edits not around since Feb 2021 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{not around|3=16 February 2021}}
]
] ]

= Boxes =
{{user degree/PhD subject|Philosophy}}
{{User published author}}
{{user writer}}
{{clear}}
{{User py-5}}
{{User haskell-N}}
{{User bash-2}}
{{User prog-N}}
{{User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Userbox/port110}}
{{User:Sir Link/Userboxes/Free software if possible}}
{{clear}}
{{user pd}}
]
{{User:Tal642/my userboxes/politicalcompass|-8.12|-8.72}}
{{clear}}


= Archives = = Archives =
]''' and is entitled to display this '''] Editor Star'''.]]
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ<br/>
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ<br/>
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ
] ǁ


] ǁ
I confess that I tire of foolishness quickly (even my own). At this rate, I'm going to need hourly archives...
] ǁ<br/>


== Sandbox ==
] /
*]
] /
*]
] /
*]
] /
*]
] /
*]
*]
*]
*]


=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. --] (]) 08:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
] /
] /
] /
] /
] /


== Knee-jerk rallying behind UN's Richard Goldstone ==
== Sandbox ==

*]

*]
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== 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 ], who reminds me an awful lot of ] ] (particularly the former). -- ] (]) 23:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

== Speedy deletion declined: ] ==
Hello Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ], 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. ]] 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! ] (]) 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. ]×] 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

==]==

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?<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
: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. ]×] 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 ], otherwise I'll presume that you accept the merge as consensus. Regards, ] (]) 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) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

== Good job ==

]. ] ] 04:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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

] ] <sup>'']''</sup> 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 ] while interacting with other editors, which you did not on ]. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-agf1 --> ] (]) 01:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
:Instead of being ] by putting the same template on my talk page when I never said anything like you did, answer my questions on the AfD. ] (]) 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. ]×] 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. ] (]) 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. ]×] 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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 ] really isn't productive. ]×] 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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) ] ] 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. ]×] 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

== Finding sources for old FOSS ==

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 ]. (I hope Joe Chill is still watching this page too.) ] ] 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. ]×] 10:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:I stopped watching it, but I checked back. Thanks for the link. ] (]) 14:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:And Lulu, please stop confusing with JBsupreme (I saw your removed comment). ] (]) 14:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

==Notability (software)==
Hello, In the deletion review ] I used a reference to ]. Because you are one of the contributors of ] , you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
:Done. I concur with other editors that ] violations are not allowed, and have now stated so on ]. ]×] 23:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

== Sources ==

I always look for sources. You bad faith assuming dick. ] (]) 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. ]×] 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. ] (]) 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 ] or ] than it does like good faith. ]×] 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. ] (]) 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. ]×] 23:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::Well, you'll always be a bad faith assuming dickish troll. ] (]) 23:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic {{#ifexist:]|]|{{{1}}}}}.}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.


* you said that joe is "Always voting delete to every topic". this is a completely bad faith accusation. i dont know his vote history, but even if he did vote delete every time, maybe that is because he only chooses to vote on articles which he thinks do not meet the requirements of having an article. 1000 delete votes in a row in non notable articles makes this place better, not worse (if you are fundamentalist about notability, that is). now if you were to say "joe voted delete on x, y, and z, articles when notability had already been clearly established", then you would have an argument. but just stating "he always votes delete" is just totally flawed. ] (]) 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
:Theserialcomma, what I think Lulu is trying to say is that it what would ''really'' help Misplaced Pages is if Joe Chill learned how to use Google and related search engines properly. He can claim he knows, but he never shows evidence of looking for any sources. Even ], not many users would be !voting delete on EVERY Afd they participate in. And please don't say that you forgive edits than involve accusing someone of being a dick, a troll and a violator of ].--<sup><span style="color:blue;">Trust</span></sup><sub><span style="color:tan;">Me</span></sub><sup>]</sup> 01:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::I don't !vote delete on ''every'' AfD. It would be most AfDs. I have different opinions on notability '''so why can't people accept that?''' Lulu really is a violator of AGF as the comments that I quoted in ANI show. ] (]) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
i think it's quite an ambitious and unrealistic undertaking to attempt to scrutinize an AFD nominator for allegedly not googling hard enough. the only person who has a ] of providing evidence, realistically, practically, logically, scientifically, and demonstrably, will always and only be on the claimant. i.e. if you want the material to remain in the encyclopedia, the burden is on you to provide the evidence (RS and N) that it deserves to be here. attacking the nominator, ultimately, is an exercise in futility, because you cannot ever definitively prove that he did not google hard enough. sure, you can speculate that he doesn't search for sources before nominating, and base your evidence pattern of AFD behavior, but you are ultimately wasting your time because the true burden will always be on the one who wants the material to remain. short of some sort of egregious bad faith nominator, which i dont believe for one second that joe chill is, it is best to think of AFD as a forced scrutiny of an article's suitability for wikipedia, which only serves to make the encyclopedia better. if the article gets deleted, it was probably not worthy of inclusion. poorly sourced articles have the potential to give wikipedia a bad name because their content isn't reliably sourced, and when there is no RS, who knows what kind of potential nonsense the article states.

in the end, building a good encyclopedia is what matters. AFD nominators, whether they attempt to google for 10 hours or 10 seconds, are still doing the encyclopedia a helpful service by forcing more scrutiny on an article, which will result in a better article, or a deleted article which didnt pass our criteria for inclusion. dubiously sourced articles, sentences, and paragraphs are one of the main culprits behind WP's reputation for being unreliable. without a reliable source, its possible to introduce potential POV, lies, slander, hoaxes, advertising, and all sorts of unverifiable information. sometimes the unsourced material is innocuous, and other times it's embarrassingly false. so i support those who remove unsourced/poorly sourced content, and i also support those who put the work into hunting down reliable sources. no one is the bad guy here. you and joe are both doing the right thing, because in the end, the forced scrutiny of an AFD exposes an article to more editors.

i saw an objection before that joe votes delete all the time. i see no problem with this, however. if joe votes delete in 100 AFDs in a row, it doesnt mean necessarily that he is trying to delete every article he sees. rather, it could mean that he came across 10,000 articles and 100 of them did not meet notability standards. that is good editing, as far as i'm concerned. if he did a deep google search for all potential AFDs, he might not have had time to get to as many unsourced articles. what's better, an afd that many people see and scrutinize, and maybe save, or maybe get it deleted if it's not worthy... or an article, sitting in the mainspace, that someone comes across in google, and is filled with misinformation, making wikipedia look unreliable. i say AFD more unsourced articles, let more people scrutinize them, make policy based votes, and either improve or delete the article. either way, you end up with a better encyclopedia.

i think you are both doing good work, and i think you both make valid points. my perspective is that a poorly/unsourced statement or article is a direct liability to WP's reputation, and i support those who challenge any dubious content. i also support those who take the time to track down sources. collaboration is a dirty business, no doubt. ] (]) 07:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Actually, the {{tl|update}} tag is relevant because the Mobile version is only roughly similar to the desktop one. It was even developed from the standard code base by different developers (this is said in one of the sources, forgot which). It needs to be covered in the article in some detail, but it's only mentioned in the infobox. ] ] 07:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
: Given that most of the refs are about the Mobile one, it could easily have a separate article, with its own screenshot, etc. ] ] 07:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. ], a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to ]. ] has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

==JBSupreme==

Please note . <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== RFC incomplete ==

*]

You need to make sure to fill in and complete the other required subsections for this RFC, or it will end up being deleted. Cheers, ''']''' (]) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, I know. I'm not too familiar with RfCs (I think I started one once in 2006, but the details are vague). If you would like to help me put it in order, that would be great! On the other hand, I'm not sure that the RfC actually is the best forum; the ongoing AN/I might be better. After I wrote the AN/I, one response was "go put it on RfC", which I did just to cover bases. ]×] 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
* Statement of the dispute
*Desired outcome
*Description
*Evidence of disputed behavior
*Applicable policies and guidelines
*Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
*Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
Those are the empty things you have to complete. :) ''']''' (]) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:...again, I welcome help. Gotta run. ]×] 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
::The instructions at the RFC page are quite clear. You already have a bit of the info, you just need to add it into those subsections appropriately... ''']''' (]) 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Lulu, please feel free to quote me or reuse the diffs from the evidence I gathered before and during the ArbCom case <br />Also (linked )<br />One thing I observed some time ago is that JBsupreme began placing an <code>&amp;nbsp;</code> in the edit summary box to prevent the MediaWiki software from automatically using the section title in the edit summary. This also prevents him from receiving an automated notice from one of the bots that warns editors who don't use edit summaries. --] (]) 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

== ] nomination of ] ==
]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

== Confused about a book you seem to have coauthored ==

lists you as a coauthor, but it's not held anywhere, and I can't find it in online stores either. Strange. ] ] 02:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
:There's a long story there, most of which I probably can't disclose. The short version is that I am not a coauthor on that book now, and it has not been published. There is a different book by a well known technical publisher that I am trying to get the contract ironed out on, but ] isn't allowed in the article. :-) ]×] 03:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
:: Interesting. I guess ISBNs get pre-allocated, so even if a book doesn't get printed, the ISBN remains valid. ] ] 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
::: Yep. My ''Text Processing in Python'' was originally going to be published by a different publisher, and so has an unused ISBN somewhere for that (hypothetical) edition. Btw. The is the hundred-and-some libraries that have my book a lot or not very many? I have no real intuition about that. The book I allude to that I will ''probably'' be author on, is in 200-some libraries in its earlier editions :-).
::: I confess I'm slightly annoyed that David Eppstein !voted "Delete" on the AfD. He's commenting in absolute good faith, and in measured and reasonable terms. But I feel like his idea of notability is at too high a threshold... at least for the "kind of person" I am. Which is a strange type, I know. I've published in diverse areas, most of which are somewhere in the middle between general-audience and completely academic. So I neither have a huge readership, nor anything "fundamentally new" in highly technical areas... still, even if I were not me, I would '''want''' bios of people like me. Actually, I've rescued several somewhat similar articles of colleagues of mine in several fields (either started the article, or expanded and saved from AfD, or similar); none of them are either household names or earth-shaking theorists, but all (like me) are the sort of person one might occasionally want to look up info on. I lean towards keep on those things. Likewise for other bios of people I do not know, and will certainly never know, in areas unrelated to anything I do. ]×] 04:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
:::: The catch is that the guidelines for ]s have been tightened a lot since the 2005 AfD(s). Back then there was a provision for 5000 copies of a book or so. Even having a widely held book these days isn't enough though; it needs to be highly cited, and yours is not. The current guideline reads (omitting the stuff about visual arts):
::::* an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
::::* known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
::::* has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
:::: As far as I know, although you're on the Python board, you are not one of the major software contributors there. I don't know much about OCV though, either about its importance, or how much you've contributed to it as a "body of work" (LOL for the double meaning). ] ] 04:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
(dedent) Yeah, I'm really starting to have more sympathy with a number of friends of mine who have given up on writing for Misplaced Pages because the deletionists have held sway. The net result is pretty overwhelmingly bad, with articles now being deleted as much as being written. Of course I agree there should be some standards, but we seem almost to have reached the point where nothing that doesn't fit in Britannica is surviving AfD here.

I was thinking about the (badly) revised ], in relation to the notability of the bio on me. I think what might help to establish "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" is the fact that it was an article of mine that established the use of coroutines in Python. I pointed out that the technique could be done (in a slightly circuitous manner) using the existing generator mechanism. Based on that work, cited me. That PEP was itself rejected, but the same idea was raised again in . However, the latter only cited PEP288, and no longer me directly. So even though, since I know all the people involved, I know how my idea was incorporated in the core language, this requires a little bit of ] to show. ]×] 06:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

== Re: Tattoo Removal Edits ==

In regard to the link that you removed as "SPAM", this link lead to article that was published in "The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology". It explains the treatment of bulla which is a rare side effect of laser tattoo removal and is part of the wikipedia article. For this reason I would ask you kindly to revert your deletion of this link.

Thanking you in advance.

Sugarlady45

* ] (]) 03:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:That link looks fine. Did I really make an edit that just removed that? I apologize if so. There was an insertion that had added a link to a commercial tattoo removal company, basically just advertising. I meant to revert that, but not to an academic article. I'll go look at the history. ]×] 05:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::OK, I was partially correct. I removed both a commercial ] and reasonable source in the same edit. However, the JCAD article is better used as a footnote to a prose description in the body text of its subject than as a generic "External link" that is present for non-obvious reasons. If you want to write a sentence or two summarizing the JCAD article, with a footnote to that article, I think that would be a great addition to the ] article. ]×] 05:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Talkback|ErikHaugen|ts=07:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)}}

== ] ==

At AfD. Needs considerable clean-up as well. ] ] 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

== Jonund ==

I see you're having problems with Jonund and his POV-pushing at ]. I've seen him at work at several articles, including ] and ].

What do you think about the idea of bringing his behavior to AN/I? Do you think it would do any good? —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

:Seems like a good idea. If you start a report, I'll comment. ]×] 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

::I'll post something in the next day or so, and I'll leave you note to let you know. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

==Deletion review for ]==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> --] (]) 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
:I have nominated the page for deletion at ]. ] (]) 18:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Because you participated in ], you may be interested in ]. ] (]) 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

== ] nomination of ] ==
]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

== ] nomination of ] ==
]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 02:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

==CEASE YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS NOW==
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to ] other editors{{#if:|, as you did on ]}}. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> ] (]) 18:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

] Please do not ] other editors{{#if:|, as you did at ]}}. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npa2 -->

To be specific, you are making false accusations about me, stooping so low as to resort to name calling me as a "vandal". In point of fact I have well over 20,000 edits here, many of which have been to reverse real, actual vandalism and report it to WP:AIV. That you disagree with my edits or don't like the fact that I am upholding ], ], and now ] policy is your problem, not mine. We also have standards for reliable sources, notability, discourage autobiographies, and so on. Again, I am sorry may not agree with these policies and standards, but it is no excuse for you to constantly refer to my edits, well within policy mind you, as "vandalism" just because you do not like them. If you disagree with my view on Misplaced Pages, fine, but grow up. ] (]) 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)\
===Final warning===
Consider this a final warning about accusations against {{user |JBsupreme}}.] <small>(])</small>

==Edit war==
Hello. You appear to be involved in an ] on ]. While ] is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Further, I see a pattern of abusing reversions using ]. Please review ] and change your editing patterns immediately. ] <small>(])</small> 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

==Thank you==
I won't be disturbing your talk page any further this afternoon, I just wanted to respectfully say thanks for the withdrawal of your comments. I hope that we may be able to find middle ground between us (and the community at large) in the future. ] (]) ✄ ✄ ✄ 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

== Inappropriate addition of ] and misattribution of sources ==

I have reverted of your on ]. ] is not mentioned in either of those two sources you cite. Given this and your recent, related accusations against {{user|JBsupreme}}, I find your recent editing highly disruptive and will block you if I see any further inappropriate reversions of others' edits or insertion of un-sourced material related to ]. ] <small>(])</small> 21:32, 12 March 2010

==Python and whitespace==
When people attack python, usually the thing they attack is the whitespace-for-blocks thing. I can see how that might reasonably go into a Criticism section or something, but it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. . I've put together a (there are others) about why the whitespace issue shouldn't be a nail in Python's coffin. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:This comment on article content is best addressed on the relevant article talk page ]. I disagree that the longstanding and frequently discussed feature you have removed from lead should be relegated to a footnote, but in any case, that's a article talk not user talk matter. ]×] 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


==Judith Butler==
Dear Lulu. I noticed, that you decided to delete an interview with Judith Butler. While I share your opinion about the specific interview, it wasn't even linked in the article or used as a citation/source, I couldn't help but thinking, that the interview might be useful in the future .... for someone else. Would a dedicated section "Interview" section above the references be a better solution, assuming we also feature the interviews linked already in the article? Thank you. ] (]) 08:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

==RfD nomination of ]==
I have nominated {{la|Barry Soetoro}} for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ]. Thank you. ] (]) 03:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hello,

Would you be so kind to review and comment ] which is pending a deletion review I would be happy with a merge back to the way it was with partial listings. But any comments welcome.
] (]) 03:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is ].The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.

P.S. You are mentioned once in relation to a prior incident, and as such I am required to notify you. --] (]) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

==Conflation==
Please help me understand how to resolve the questions your edit implies. See ]. --] (]) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

==File copyright problem with File:Python add5 syntax.png==
]
Thank you for uploading ]. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes ] very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the '''license''' and the '''source''' of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a ''']''' to the ].

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in .

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the ]. Thanks again for your cooperation.<!-- Template:Di-no license-notice --> ] (]) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

I have collapsed the published works section per the suggestion of {{user|Tothwolf}} at ]. I hope that is okay. ] (]) 06:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

== A common problem ==

Dear Wikipedist editor, I want to submit to your attention an our common problem: disruptive contributions and edit warring operated by user ] ]. This latter shows systematically a provoking behaviour and lacking of respect for other people’s work, typical of vandalism. I’ve sent this communication to many people having the same problem in order to organize a collective protest/action request directed to e.g. the Arbitration Committee or Requests for comment/User conduct (this latter procedure requires the participation of at least two users) or to the Misplaced Pages Community. If you agree with this initiative please contact me at this dedicated email address:
clipeaster-1971 AT yahoo DOT com.
In order to avoid creating of a forum section dedicated to Derek farn I suggest you to delete this communication once you’ve read it and, then, be in contact via email.
Any suggestion are welcomed. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, ] (]) 18:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
:As another user pointed out to me that suggesting to be in contact outside wikipedia is not a correct way, for transparency reasons, so I conclude that we need to correspond via talk page. Best regards, ] (]) 02:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC).
== Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted ==

I invite you to the ], 1-3 June. . If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in .


This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ] and Gadgets (]), the switch to ], , and ].
= New Stuff =


We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!
== MONGO post RfA ==


I also thought you might want to know about ] where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the ] for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.
I'm speechless at the outcome...all I can say is I'm sorry.--] 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Check out the the ] and ].
:Thanks for the sentiment. And also for the supportive comments along the way, and comments in my defence within the RfA page. I figured for the last few days it would fail as slightly less than 75%... which it did. If the bureaucrat had decided to take a really close look, she might have weighed the various voters and reasons; but I know that pretty much that only happens if it's between 75% and 80%. Below that, I think is an automatic "nope", and above that an automatic "yep".


Best wishes!
:It's OK though, I learned something about flaws in the RfA process by going through it. And all the folks that I actually communicated with in the process (especially those who switched in my direction after starting a conversation) will be useful contacts to work with on new issues. I think I'll sort through which of them are admins themselves, for reference. Most of the time when I might want an admin, it wouldn't be something I could do myself, because of the conflict of interest. So it really just means that I can't lend as much of a hand to other editors issues (which is slightly too bad). ] 06:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- ], Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or ].
] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
==Non-free rationale for File:Raphael Samuels.jpg==
]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under ], but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages is acceptable. Please go to ], and edit it to include a ].


If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on ]. If the file is already gone, you can still make a ] and ask for a chance to fix the problem.<!-- Template:You can request undeletion --> If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> ] (]) 22:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
::Well, I think is wrong that people confuse strong opinions with contributions. It isn't a matter of whether they agree with your POV, it's whether your edits contribute to the overall improvement of article content and NPOV. For instance, ]...I think the guy has misrepresented his Native American heritage to a degree, and has spoken harshly about certain things, but his article isn't to be used as an attack page as some have done. All you have done there is to ensure article integrity is maintained. Same can be said with ]. As far as the process of electing admins being flawed...I would tend to agree...so much of it is based on not making any waves, but our best contributors are the ones that take a stand like yourself and back their citations with facts. As I mentioned on your Rfa, I see no evidence that you would have abused admin tools, and even if you did a little, there are plenty of admins that would do something about it. Interesting that in the real world, you really are a somebody and here is this sometimes pathetic little website, you fail to achieve all you deserve. It's no big deal...carry on!--] 06:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


== MAGIC programming language ==
:::Naturally, I agree that the opposition for outside political reasons is foolish (many of which are just fancied, not necessarily anything to do with my actual beliefs... though mine are indeed rather to the left of the "mainstream"). I'm all with you on Churchill (I don't even disagree with your characterization; but even if I did, all that matters is that what goes in the article is WP:V and WP:NPOV). And the silly dictators thing (where ''I'' was the one who first added Castro to the list, for gosh sake; but a couple POV-warrior went ape-shit that there wasn't enough irrelevant condemnation in the annotation). The worst though was the identitarian list people. There were three or four that came out of the Jewish list brouhaha, and two or three from the GLB list (I'm somehow tempted to say something about how absurd their assumptions of my anti-whatever bias are: I might wink about the fact that my dear Jewish mother wrote the first gay-rights ordinance in the USA :-)).


Hi! I read ]. I looked at the list of articles about MAGIC but had trouble finding reliable sources. Do you know of any reliable sources about this language?
:::I wouldn't exaggerate how much of a "somebody" I am, but I reach slight notability. But that did hurt my RfA a bit too, obviously... or at least inasmuch as I made some edits on the page discussing my minor noteriety.
] (]) 03:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
== File:Python add5 syntax.png listed for deletion ==
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 00:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
:::Still, there really is a silver lining. I had good conversations with a number of voters. For example, Pierremenard started as an oppose vote, changed to support after my contact, then we even worked together on a silly little article (but a fun one: ]). Actually, much like with my conflicts with you, I think several editors who started out as oppose will wind up some of my most helpful collaborators. Lemons and lemonade and all :-). ] 07:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 21:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
== Bureaucrat on RfA non-consensus ==


== Notification of automated file description generation ==
I'm sorry to let you know that your recent RfA did not reach consensus. Many nominations that don't succeed the first time do succeed on subsequent tries, so don't be discouraged. Read the opinions of voters to help guide you in the future. Good luck! ] 05:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Your upload of ] or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.


This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions ]. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill-null--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 11:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
:While some of the oppose votes had some points, half of the oppose votes where: "we HATE your POV cause you disaggre with use so I OPPOSE". Not much to learn there, other than to avoid hot topics and let them rot away to POV trolls.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 16:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


*Another one of your uploads, ], has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill-null--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 11:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
::Indeed, that's not such a helpful lesson to learn. It makes me sympathetic with some sort of RfA reform. Maybe something more hierarchical in certain ways would help. For example, I'm certain that if you could somehow count the aggregate edit counts among support voters, and those among oppose voters, it would tilt the right way by more than 75%, or even by more than say 90%. Or if you only counted the admin votes, again that would tilt it in my direction. Or if Misplaced Pages had some kind of "karma" or "reputation" system like Slashdot and places like that, you could read the votes at (+3) (a lot of the oppose votes are POV-warriors who would presumably be lower rated under such a system, if stuff like RfCs, RfArs and prior blocks were demerits).


*Another one of your uploads, ], has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill-null--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 11:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
::Anyway, thanks again, Voice of All, for the support you lent, and the pleasant comments. I think I need to make a nice "thank you" statement to send to all the supporters. Maybe just a one line appreciation note... but being who I am, I'm tempted to try to put in a brief couple sentences that describe a post-mortem too. Ah... maybe that's getting too preachy (a flaw I know I have, which I wish I could blame on my history of teaching college, but actually pre- and post-dates that interlude of my life). ] 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


*Another one of your uploads, ], has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 11:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
:::Nah, leave out the brief sentences, the ones bright enough to wonder will know where to look for your thoughts on the matter... Anyway, here's waving a beer at ya, better luck next time, Cheers, ] 04:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
==MfD nomination of ]==
], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 00:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


== ] ==
==You're going to be an admin?!?!==


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I cannot believe that they would ever think about letting a communist like you become an administrator. You would probably apply your Marxist ways to Misplaced Pages.
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691987405 -->
] 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
== Reword ==
Hope you don't mind the little tweak I made, but I reckon that some would use it as a club to smack you with... and you've got me in the wrong column! - ]]] 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 04:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:Wrong column? You're an admin who voted support, right? I'm trying to make a checklist of people to thank, but I also want to break out the oppose reasons to better understand it. They seem to fall in a few types:
== Template:Echo listed at ] ==
:# External political opinions
]
:# "Getting even" for my prior insistence on WP:NPOV and WP:V
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Template:Echo'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 12:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
:# Concerns about autobiography and edit counts
:# "Where there's smoke, there's fire"
:But anyway, it's a sandbox for my own use, mostly. I may ask folks to opine after I've sorted it out. Well, there ''was'' a subtle link back in the thanks I sent you... but CJK seems to have discovered it by watching my edit history (I only sent out the first half-dozen thanks or so... lots more to go, but I wanted to refactor the link-back page more before that). ] 22:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


== ]: Voting now open! ==
::Well, I ''did'' support, but ] And harsh experience has taught me that if someone is looking for something to stick it to you with, your sandboxes are the ''first'' place that they will look!


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
::Sorry how it turned out, but I reckon that given '''a)''' The current RfA method, '''b)''' The areas the you edit in, and '''c)''' Your sweet disposition (^_^) it was inevitable. Most of the oppose recomendations were either grossly innacurate of totally unactionable, but there are a few in there that could stand some reflection. Keep doing the good stuff you've been doing, it should be no sweat next time.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
::Oh, and check out ]. Too late for you, of course. ]]] 01:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Actually, I mentioned Linuxbeak's discussion area in one of the questions on my RfA. There is probably a slight something to learn. The areas I edit are going to attract some dissent; on the other hand, I'm pretty gruff and sort of "don't pretend shit smells like roses". I don't ''ever'' resort to personal attack, despite some accusations to that effect, but my manner indeed convinces some people that I'm suggesting something much worse than anything I actually write.
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/4&oldid=750541749 -->


== ]: Voting now open! ==
:::And the edit summary thing is dead on. I honestly hadn't thought about it too much; but I totally "get" why it is not such good editing practice to omit them as often as I have (still, it's mostly for minor edits, which I only mark for genuinely minor edits, like fix some spelling error... I'm not sure it really needs comment).


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
:::Maybe I'm better off without the mop anyway though. It gives me a certain liberty to "call bullshit" that I might not have if I were an administrator. And doing that is often, in fact, quite productive. It ruffles some feathers (too many metaphors, huh?), but once their smoothed what needs to happen happens more quickly than it would with a purely touchy-feely approach. The fact I've never tried to win a popularity contest hurt me, but then maybe admins should be people who want to win them... since they can come in as smelling neutral and removed from the fray. ] 03:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== Sorry it didn't succeed (econ thread) ==
As a fellow ] - ], I was sorry to hear that your RfA did not reach consensus. My ] also failed, but I ]. I would advise you to wait 2-3 months minimum and then try again. I will certainly support you again. --] 05:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:I hoped you noticed where my above links linked to. Actually I am a Republican, but I recognize a good wikipedian. Don't let the oppose votes get you down. --] 05:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
:See ] by ] --] 05:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/4&oldid=750541749 -->


== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==
::Oh well, I'm suffering from foot-in-mouth disease. Should have looked at the links. Still, I think it ''was'' ] who first used the phrase "Groucho Marxist", and he wasn't exactly Republican. Would it help if told you I was born in ].... Kanas? :-) ] 06:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
good god! an ] and a republican voting for a marxist. yea verily do the lion and the lamb lie together at wikipedia. jimbo hath wrought a miracle. ] 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
:Isn't Marx in everyone's "top 10 economists" list :-). Just personal trivia: well-known Marxist economist ] was the outside member on my dissertation committee at UMass. I probably shouldn't say this, but he was probably the only member who actually ''read'' the whole (rather long) document. In fact, the only other person whom I believe to have made it all the way through the thing was a friend of mine, and one of Rick's doctoral students, Yahya Madra... '''I''' certainly couldn't have made it through reading a like that (writing it was hard enough). ]


If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
::yeah, you have a regular coven of marxist economists out there. actually some really bright folks, and the only such collection i'm aware of that's viewed as 'credible' by mainstream economists. it's cool though, i'm an expert on 'market failures', which makes me unpopular with the chicago economafia too (the misguided disciples of a misinterpretation of ]). i'm just not ''completely'' kook ;)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/07&oldid=813406947 -->


== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
:::Do you know ]'s coining of the term "sado-monetarism"? I think it really gets to the heart of Chicago :-). ] 03:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
::::coffee out nose, onto keyboard. damn you! that's good. ] 14:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
:::Btw. I was under the impression that UU also had at least a klatch of the Marxy economists, if not a whole coven. No? ] 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
::::utah? i take it. it appears they do, though i've never heard tell of it. there's kind of a big reputation divide between the 'players' and the rest economics, whether justified or not. you hear about umass, but for all i knew utah didn't even have an econ dept. not to say some of them aren't good, but they're either not making waves or not being taken seriously. do you know gunseli? ] 02:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/07&oldid=866998231 -->
== Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
::::: I just read the faculty list. It's positively rife with those (us) commies :-). A few of them actually say "Marxian" (what kind of word is that, I know that the adjective ends in "-ist"). But it's not hard to see the wink-and-nudge euphemisms in the rest: "Political Economy", "Race, Class, Gender", etc. Even those ones that mention "Labor organization" seem pretty pink to me. I think you're right that those aren't really "names" at UU though... I probably just know it because several of them came out of UMass, and I knew either by acquaintance or reputation. I think I might have briefly met Gunseli Berik, but only to say hello; there was this large Turkish contingent of Marxist Economists for some reason, and I knew a good handful of them, to varying extents... actually, initally through my good friend Irfan Acar, who is Turkish, but a UMass EE Ph.D. , no economist... but naturally still a Marxist; the econ folks though, were much closer to what I do than were folks in my own department, what with Postomodernists Rick Wolff and Steve Resnick corrupting the young minds. ] 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
::for the record, i don't read dissertations either. my view is that if i don't already know what's in there, i shouldn't be asked to sign it. learned that the hard way, after having to be the last-minute 'bad guy' too often. ] 23:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
== {{user|JDG}} ==
Hi. Sorry the ] thing didn't work out. I'm here asking for a favour. You're the only editor I know with a good working relationship with ], so I was hoping you might have a word with him. I'm concerned about and JDG left for ]. Whatever the provenance of the image in question is, surely its not worth being this confrontational about. If you could have a word, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. ] 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->
:Lotle, thanks for the message on my user Talk. You put the issue well. Unfortunately, this new drive by folks like JKelly to take a chicken-little approach to copyright is now one of the major threats to the project. If I have the energy I'll be fighting it on the level of policy, but thanks for taking the time... BTW Lotle, you may be wondering why I didn't show up at your RfA. The answer: you're too valuable an editor to lose to Adminship. There's a whole class of people now in WP whose main interest seems to be Arbitration, Policies, Mutual Admiration-- everything but researching and writing good articles. The temptation to wield power is there, but except for born Administrators like Raul654, mav and a few others it's really in the end a net distraction. Are you really Marxist? Then surely your better self tells you there is no higher position in WP than Editor. ] 20:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
::This effort wasn't initiated by JKelly, but rather by Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation board, on advice of their lawyers. I'm afraid I tend to agree with them on the "chicken-little approach". However unjust the current laws are, there are plenty of folks like the RIAA and MPAA who are quite happy to launch massive lawsuits at the slightest whiff of copyright violation. Better to go without a few images on pages than to face Wikimedia spending millions on laywers fees and fines.
==] nomination of ]==
]


A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Misplaced Pages having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.
::''...(all power to the soviets)...'' :-). Maybe I'm actually an anarcho-syndicalist though; not to say that gives a lot of sympathy to our Administrator Overlords necessarily... ] 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. <!-- Template:Db-redundantimage-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 07:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
:::I'll have to go check out what these lawyers are feeding to Jimbo.. Just got off the phone with a lawyer buddy who just happens to be one of the top copyright specialists in Manhattan. He was incredulous that Wikimedia would go in this direction after so many years without a problem, as am I.. I actually don't really adhere to this "Information wants to be free" notion. I strongly believe there is a time and place for airtight copyright and patent protection and that, in fact, the strength and wisdom of the U.S. Patent system through the 19th and 20th centuries was one of a handful of reasons the US became such a powerhouse... But images of entertainers? No. These people take in millions and tens of millions by putting themselves out into the public eye. Sometimes that eye is a lens. The doctrine of Fair Use couldn't be clearer when it comes to images of public figures intended for non-commercial purposes. I'm pretty sure Jimbo will have a better grasp of this than neophytes like JKelly, so I'll make my case to him I guess. ] 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
::::The Wikimedia lawyers are definitely on the right track here. I mean, not as a moral issue, but certainly as a legal one. There's not only the copyright issue, but also the publicity rights one. For example, the family of Martin Luther King was paid a lot of money (I don't know exactly how much, but quite likely in the millions) to use King's image and sound recording in an advertising campaign. Now I think that's a crass use of a great figure, but quite apart from the issue of kitch, the family/executors had this legal control quite independent of the copyright on the specific images (many of which are public domain). But at the same time, the narrow copyright issue has been radically cut back in cases such as the publication of the book ''The Wind Done Gone'' (an intellectual derivative ''Gone With the Wind'', but not using any of the literal words from the prior work). ] 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
== Keep it up! (Revealing results) ==


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
The results of the RfA were revealing. I would argue that having the support of 73, most of which are admins and/or long-time contributors to WP, is a sign that you have done good in your efforts as an editor. I would also argue that the nature of ''some'' of the oppose votes is ''also'' an indication that you have done good in your efforts. I just hope that the RfA results do not discourage from continuing with your efforts in editing controversial articles. We need more editors like you, that are willing to comit to WP content guidelines and to assert their unwillingness to compromise on these. Keep up the good work, David. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small>


Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->
:Not to worry... I'm disappointed, but I've gotten over it. So many articles left to fix :-). ] 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
== Kuhn, Foucault, Borges ==


== I'm Sorry ==
Thanks! By the way, your talk page sure seems to get vandalized a lot. I wonder if this is because of your Hero-Of-Socialist-Labor medal image. By the way, do you have the citation that I asked for about Franz Kuhn and Borges? (In case you have not noticed, I'm a bit obsessed with citations). --] 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm Sorry for getting mad at you in 2006.
:I'm afraid I don't know for sure whether Kuhn and Borges were actually acquainted. I probably made too much of an assumption when I first wrote that sentence... but you took out the acquaintance, then put it back in, so I just figured you had determined it. We can probably find a more neutral phrase that doesn't commit us to whether they actually met. ] 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 23:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
::Is it not the case that ] writes in his ''Otras Inquisiciones'' ("Other Inquisitions") that a doctor named ] gave ] a volume of a Chinese encyclopedia that Focault used for classifying animals? ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
:::Are you riffing on us, or is this true? It's hilarious if true, and we should put something about it in the ] article. ] 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>'''Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
:::: I looked through my copy of "Other Inquisitions" and could not find this. However, "Other Inquisitions" includes "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins," so we may be talking about the same reference. --] 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Exactly. It was in Borges essay "El idioma analítico de John Wilkins" ]. Focault refers this in the preface of ''The Order of Things''. There is an interesting article about this here ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 03:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
::::: Ummm... are you pulling my leg here? The Borges story you give as a link doesn't mention Foucault in any respect. It sure looks like you were saying above that after Foucault wrote the preface citing Borges, Borges responded by attributing a connection between Foucault and the list (other than the one of Foucault reading Borges story). That would have been clever, and conceivable given that Borges and Foucault were contemporary, and probably both knew of each other (and perhaps even met; though I do not know). ] 08:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Prego, prego... my confusion. Interesting how things get mixed up sometimes. I may have made that same deduction in my head. Go figure... I felt so sure I read that, though!] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 16:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 09:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
== General post-RfA appreciation messages ==
== ] of ] ==
]


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
Damn, I thought you'd be a shoe-in. -- ] 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>'''Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
You're very welcome. It's a shame you didn't get in, but you can always try again later. ] <font size="-3">], ]</font> ] 09:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
Better luck next time, I am surprised that your RfA wasn't successful. In any case, let me know about any in the future and I will be happy to add my support. <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">]</font></b> <font size="1">(])</font> 12:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 09:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I do agree with above, and please do not loose heart, and please continue with renewed zeal. --] 16:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
I too am sorry that you didn't succeed. I wish you luck in the future. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>'''Old image not useful.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
*It's a shame your nomination failed, but I'll be on the lookout for the next one. --] 05:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
**ditto here. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 08:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
Just want to say that my oppose vote carried no malice at all, and it was most definitely not about your edits to controversial articles. Keep up with the good work, use edit summaries more, and avoid too much campaigning next time, and you should cruise.


Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]<small> • </small>]) 23:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Note that the problem I have with campaigning isn't a procedural one, but the somewhat dangerous assumption that a lack of detailed explanation beside the vote indicates a lack of considered thought before voting. Sometimes there is a bandwagon problem, but not in all cases, and if you acknowledeged that when posting to talk pages it would make a big difference.
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
I have empathy with you for having to deal with so many editors with a vendetta, and you'll most likely have my support next time. - ] (]) 10:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
=== jayanthv86 ===
<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 11:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


== Zizek Bibliography: deletion of Russia Today publications ==
Hey do something abt dat anti-communist,he is making me mad.i have seen that often you dont respond so strongly as he does.Tell him to come to my page,and i think he will have a tough time.--] 10:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello Lulu,
sorry abt ur RfA dude,wish u all the best some other time,maybe i will nominate you.and i saw your leftist vabdal once again--] 09:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I write to you, because you have been editing the Slavoj Žižek Page.
=== from jayanthv86 2: ===
I'm editing the Zizek bibliography. Here I also mention the op-ed publications on Russia Today. There is a WP editor who holds the opinion, that these edits violate ]. I can't see how this is applicable. You can read my argument ]. The editor doesn't respond.


If you have an interest in the subject, I would be happy, if you could contribute your opinion.
well anticomm hasnt spoken a single word to me.But to see him vandalising ur pages is irritating me,so i want to divert him away from ur page,so dat i can tackle him.
If you don't have an interest, maybe you know someone else who might have?


With kind regards.
Anyways,ur photo and messagewas extremely beutiful. i liked it.--] 19:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


--] (]) 13:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
=== Max rspct ===
Hey bud, sorry yer bid for admin status didn't succeed. What is it 2/3rds of vote to win? We need more philosophers than IT bods on there! (even tho u are both!) I think your fairness shows in reverting my revert of source tags on Ward Churchill. Better luck next time -- ]<font size="1"> ] </font> 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


== Rethinking Marxism Conflict of Interest ==
:Nah, normally at least 75% minimum for consensus. 03:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Dear Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters,
=== Well, You've Heard It Above, But I'll Say It Anyway (Karmafist) ===
You'll do great in a few months, just keep on with the niceness and the staying away from your article(as well as e-mailing rather than putting edits on talk pages in sticky situations), and you'll likely get what you need in votes to become an admin. Let's get some more coffee sometime, eh? <font color="#4682B4">]</font><font color="#00FF00">]</font><font color="#E32636">]</font> 04:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


The entries for Rethinking Marxism and Jack Amariglio are flagged for conflict of interest. I have created these along the same time I set up the Stephen A Resnick entry—which you used to create the now very developed Richard D. Wolff entry. I wonder if you could do anything to improve the Rethinking Marxism and Jack Amariglio entries so that they are not marked anymore?
:Yeah, let's. ] 04:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Many thanks,
=== Welcome (Pete.Hurd) ===
Aye, it is good. Gracious, and seeping wisdomly vibes, Rock-on. ] 05:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Ymadra <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== LGB lists ==
I'd be comfortable with having them semiprotected, but I wouldn't be comfortable just imposing that without some discussion on the talk pages, since different people seem to have different ideas about what it's meant for. ] 19:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


== You have been pruned from a list ==
== Regarding ], please review ] ==


'''Hi Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters!''' You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at ], but you haven't made any edits to the English Misplaced Pages in over 3 months.
Please do take care to review this Misplaced Pages policy. I'm sure the Churchill article is not the first one with political/contentious content you've worked on, but I see that you've made over 180 edits to the Churchill article in various edit wars with a number of different people over the last two months.


Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting ].
On political topics such as Churchill (which as you know has been a particular draw for POV-mongers and vandals), you need to take special care about not attributing motives, slanting characterizations to promote a specific POV, and so on. In particular, you should make sure that when you edit the article that you are basing your contributions on fact and not opinion or hearsay.


'''Thank you!'''
In regards to that, I came to this article today for the first and noticed some clearly POV and factually inaccurate information on the article, which I corrected. It turns out that you have reverted attempts on at least half a dozen occasions of people attempting to make essentially the identical correction. I am of course refering to you changing the statement regarding Bill O'Reilly on the ''The O'Reilly Factor'' from (emphasis added by me)
Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
:"'''suggesting''' his viewers to e-mail the college to cancel Churchill's invitation"
== ] of ] ==
to
]
:"'''imploring''' his viewers to e-mail the college to cancel Churchill's invitation"


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
Clearly, as the reference I added to the article today indicates, Mr. O'Reilly did not implore his viewers to take any action. In fact, the statement that you repeatedly reverted was itself an overstatement of Mr. O'Reilly's actions. To quote from the transcipt of ''The O'Reilly Factor:''
<blockquote>'''Two press releases make a poor notability case, and I only see trivial mentions elsewhere.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
:And if you wish to voice your opinion to Hamilton College, the phone number is 315-859-4444. Or you can e-mail the school's president Joan Hinde Stewart at jstewart@hamilton.edu.


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
:Please keep your comments respectable. Any threats or bad language diminishes a worthy cause. We'll let these misguided people know they are doing wrong.


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 16:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Within twenty minutes of my editting the article to correct the mischaracterization of O'Reilly's statements (mischaraterizations which you had repeatedly replaced in the article), you reverted other edits of mine to minimize attributions of O'Reilly and his guest Paul Campos&mdash;an attribution in Campos case which used the exact word ('''appalled''') that Campos himself used in describing his reaction to Churchill's statement.


==Renominated ] for deletion==
To remove POV from the article, the entire statement about O'Reilly "mounting a campaign against Churchill" should be removed. The cancellation of Churchill's speaking engagement came after a single dedicated segment on Churchill's statements, which hardly constituted a campaign at that point. The way it is stated in the article now gives the incorrect impression that the cause of the public outcry against Churchill's statements was largely motivated by the effort of O'Reilly to mold public opinion rather than the honest reaction of people to Churchill's statements. However, in the interest of trying to maintain NPOV I did not remove this statement because I was attempting to simply correct factual inaccuracies in the article and not get into a pointless edit war with some misguided zealot.


Hi, I'm renominating this article for deletion. You can participate ]. - ] (]) 07:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
So it is with some degree of irony that I now find you leaving a comment on my ] lecturing me on being careful about editting these articles and maintaining a NPOV. Clearly, it is you that is having difficulty maintaining the NPOV, and also you who is reverting factually correct statements to factually incorrect statements&mdash;either purposefully, or because of not bothering to determine what are facts and what are POV.
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
And now I see that you have nominated the Misplaced Pages page about me (which BTW, I only added when I found my name already mentioned in several places in Misplaced Pages the first time I ever came here.) I find this interesting, because again, based on your comments, you failed to actually get the facts before proceding. The book was added only for completeness. My "notoriety" comes from the fact that I was the principle developer of several number-one selling and quite "notable," and in one case seminal, computer games. Which, I might add, is probably a much better claim to notoriety than you can make for your self-created Misplaced Pages page.


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Certainly, I can see now why your bid for Adminship was declined. &ndash; ] <sup>]'''&bull;''']</sup> 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 19:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:33, 12 December 2023

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has not edited Misplaced Pages since 16 February 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Under bridges is a good place for trolls

Boxes

PhDThis user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Philosophy.
This user has published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals.
This user is a professional writer or journalist.
py-5This user is a professional Python programmer.
hs-NThis user sees the world around them in Haskell.
bash-2This user is an intermediate Bash programmer.
prog-NThis user thinks in bytecode and dreams of electric sheep.
Port 110This user's email client is telnet
Free software logosThis user uses free software wherever and whenever possible.
Public domainContent 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

This editor is a Veteran Editor IV and is entitled to display this Gold Editor Star.

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

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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


  • you said that joe is "Always voting delete to every topic". this is a completely bad faith accusation. i dont know his vote history, but even if he did vote delete every time, maybe that is because he only chooses to vote on articles which he thinks do not meet the requirements of having an article. 1000 delete votes in a row in non notable articles makes this place better, not worse (if you are fundamentalist about notability, that is). now if you were to say "joe voted delete on x, y, and z, articles when notability had already been clearly established", then you would have an argument. but just stating "he always votes delete" is just totally flawed. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Theserialcomma, what I think Lulu is trying to say is that it what would really help Misplaced Pages is if Joe Chill learned how to use Google and related search engines properly. He can claim he knows, but he never shows evidence of looking for any sources. Even WP:AGF, not many users would be !voting delete on EVERY Afd they participate in. And please don't say that you forgive edits than involve accusing someone of being a dick, a troll and a violator of WP:AGF.--Me 01:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't !vote delete on every AfD. It would be most AfDs. I have different opinions on notability so why can't people accept that? Lulu really is a violator of AGF as the comments that I quoted in ANI show. Joe Chill (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

i think it's quite an ambitious and unrealistic undertaking to attempt to scrutinize an AFD nominator for allegedly not googling hard enough. the only person who has a wp:burden of providing evidence, realistically, practically, logically, scientifically, and demonstrably, will always and only be on the claimant. i.e. if you want the material to remain in the encyclopedia, the burden is on you to provide the evidence (RS and N) that it deserves to be here. attacking the nominator, ultimately, is an exercise in futility, because you cannot ever definitively prove that he did not google hard enough. sure, you can speculate that he doesn't search for sources before nominating, and base your evidence pattern of AFD behavior, but you are ultimately wasting your time because the true burden will always be on the one who wants the material to remain. short of some sort of egregious bad faith nominator, which i dont believe for one second that joe chill is, it is best to think of AFD as a forced scrutiny of an article's suitability for wikipedia, which only serves to make the encyclopedia better. if the article gets deleted, it was probably not worthy of inclusion. poorly sourced articles have the potential to give wikipedia a bad name because their content isn't reliably sourced, and when there is no RS, who knows what kind of potential nonsense the article states.

in the end, building a good encyclopedia is what matters. AFD nominators, whether they attempt to google for 10 hours or 10 seconds, are still doing the encyclopedia a helpful service by forcing more scrutiny on an article, which will result in a better article, or a deleted article which didnt pass our criteria for inclusion. dubiously sourced articles, sentences, and paragraphs are one of the main culprits behind WP's reputation for being unreliable. without a reliable source, its possible to introduce potential POV, lies, slander, hoaxes, advertising, and all sorts of unverifiable information. sometimes the unsourced material is innocuous, and other times it's embarrassingly false. so i support those who remove unsourced/poorly sourced content, and i also support those who put the work into hunting down reliable sources. no one is the bad guy here. you and joe are both doing the right thing, because in the end, the forced scrutiny of an AFD exposes an article to more editors.

i saw an objection before that joe votes delete all the time. i see no problem with this, however. if joe votes delete in 100 AFDs in a row, it doesnt mean necessarily that he is trying to delete every article he sees. rather, it could mean that he came across 10,000 articles and 100 of them did not meet notability standards. that is good editing, as far as i'm concerned. if he did a deep google search for all potential AFDs, he might not have had time to get to as many unsourced articles. what's better, an afd that many people see and scrutinize, and maybe save, or maybe get it deleted if it's not worthy... or an article, sitting in the mainspace, that someone comes across in google, and is filled with misinformation, making wikipedia look unreliable. i say AFD more unsourced articles, let more people scrutinize them, make policy based votes, and either improve or delete the article. either way, you end up with a better encyclopedia.

i think you are both doing good work, and i think you both make valid points. my perspective is that a poorly/unsourced statement or article is a direct liability to WP's reputation, and i support those who challenge any dubious content. i also support those who take the time to track down sources. collaboration is a dirty business, no doubt. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mobile Colloquy

Actually, the {{update}} tag is relevant because the Mobile version is only roughly similar to the desktop one. It was even developed from the standard code base by different developers (this is said in one of the sources, forgot which). It needs to be covered in the article in some detail, but it's only mentioned in the infobox. Pcap ping 07:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that most of the refs are about the Mobile one, it could easily have a separate article, with its own screenshot, etc. Pcap ping 07:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

Hi, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

JBSupreme

Please note this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.133.96 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC incomplete

You need to make sure to fill in and complete the other required subsections for this RFC, or it will end up being deleted. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm not too familiar with RfCs (I think I started one once in 2006, but the details are vague). If you would like to help me put it in order, that would be great! On the other hand, I'm not sure that the RfC actually is the best forum; the ongoing AN/I might be better. After I wrote the AN/I, one response was "go put it on RfC", which I did just to cover bases. LotLE×talk 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Statement of the dispute
  • Desired outcome
  • Description
  • Evidence of disputed behavior
  • Applicable policies and guidelines
  • Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
  • Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

Those are the empty things you have to complete. :) Cirt (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

...again, I welcome help. Gotta run. LotLE×talk 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The instructions at the RFC page are quite clear. You already have a bit of the info, you just need to add it into those subsections appropriately... Cirt (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Lulu, please feel free to quote me or reuse the diffs from the evidence I gathered before and during the ArbCom case
Also (linked here)
One thing I observed some time ago is that JBsupreme began placing an &nbsp; in the edit summary box to prevent the MediaWiki software from automatically using the section title in the edit summary. This also prevents him from receiving an automated notice from one of the bots that warns editors who don't use edit summaries. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Mertz

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is David Mertz. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Mertz (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Confused about a book you seem to have coauthored

This lists you as a coauthor, but it's not held anywhere, and I can't find it in online stores either. Strange. Pcap ping 02:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a long story there, most of which I probably can't disclose. The short version is that I am not a coauthor on that book now, and it has not been published. There is a different book by a well known technical publisher that I am trying to get the contract ironed out on, but WP:CRYSTAL isn't allowed in the article. :-) LotLE×talk 03:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I guess ISBNs get pre-allocated, so even if a book doesn't get printed, the ISBN remains valid. Pcap ping 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep. My Text Processing in Python was originally going to be published by a different publisher, and so has an unused ISBN somewhere for that (hypothetical) edition. Btw. The is the hundred-and-some libraries that have my book a lot or not very many? I have no real intuition about that. The book I allude to that I will probably be author on, is in 200-some libraries in its earlier editions :-).
I confess I'm slightly annoyed that David Eppstein !voted "Delete" on the AfD. He's commenting in absolute good faith, and in measured and reasonable terms. But I feel like his idea of notability is at too high a threshold... at least for the "kind of person" I am. Which is a strange type, I know. I've published in diverse areas, most of which are somewhere in the middle between general-audience and completely academic. So I neither have a huge readership, nor anything "fundamentally new" in highly technical areas... still, even if I were not me, I would want bios of people like me. Actually, I've rescued several somewhat similar articles of colleagues of mine in several fields (either started the article, or expanded and saved from AfD, or similar); none of them are either household names or earth-shaking theorists, but all (like me) are the sort of person one might occasionally want to look up info on. I lean towards keep on those things. Likewise for other bios of people I do not know, and will certainly never know, in areas unrelated to anything I do. LotLE×talk 04:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The catch is that the guidelines for WP:AUTHORs have been tightened a lot since the 2005 AfD(s). Back then there was a provision for 5000 copies of a book or so. Even having a widely held book these days isn't enough though; it needs to be highly cited, and yours is not. The current guideline reads (omitting the stuff about visual arts):
  • an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  • known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  • has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
As far as I know, although you're on the Python board, you are not one of the major software contributors there. I don't know much about OCV though, either about its importance, or how much you've contributed to it as a "body of work" (LOL for the double meaning). Pcap ping 04:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(dedent) Yeah, I'm really starting to have more sympathy with a number of friends of mine who have given up on writing for Misplaced Pages because the deletionists have held sway. The net result is pretty overwhelmingly bad, with articles now being deleted as much as being written. Of course I agree there should be some standards, but we seem almost to have reached the point where nothing that doesn't fit in Britannica is surviving AfD here.

I was thinking about the (badly) revised WP:AUTH, in relation to the notability of the bio on me. I think what might help to establish "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" is the fact that it was an article of mine that established the use of coroutines in Python. I pointed out that the technique could be done (in a slightly circuitous manner) using the existing generator mechanism. Based on that work, PEP 288 cited me. That PEP was itself rejected, but the same idea was raised again in PEP 342. However, the latter only cited PEP288, and no longer me directly. So even though, since I know all the people involved, I know how my idea was incorporated in the core language, this requires a little bit of WP:SYNTH to show. LotLE×talk 06:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tattoo Removal Edits

In regard to the link that you removed as "SPAM", this link lead to article that was published in "The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology". It explains the treatment of bulla which is a rare side effect of laser tattoo removal and is part of the wikipedia article. For this reason I would ask you kindly to revert your deletion of this link.

Thanking you in advance.

Sugarlady45

That link looks fine. Did I really make an edit that just removed that? I apologize if so. There was an insertion that had added a link to a commercial tattoo removal company, basically just advertising. I meant to revert that, but not to an academic article. I'll go look at the history. LotLE×talk 05:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I was partially correct. I removed both a commercial WP:ADVERT and reasonable source in the same edit. However, the JCAD article is better used as a footnote to a prose description in the body text of its subject than as a generic "External link" that is present for non-obvious reasons. If you want to write a sentence or two summarizing the JCAD article, with a footnote to that article, I think that would be a great addition to the Tattoo removal article. LotLE×talk 05:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. You have new messages at ErikHaugen's talk page.
Message added 07:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Python Paste

At AfD. Needs considerable clean-up as well. Pcap ping 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonund

I see you're having problems with Jonund and his POV-pushing at Richard Goldstone. I've seen him at work at several articles, including Peace Now and September 11 attacks.

What do you think about the idea of bringing his behavior to AN/I? Do you think it would do any good? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. If you start a report, I'll comment. LotLE×talk 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll post something in the next day or so, and I'll leave you note to let you know. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio. Cunard (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger

Hi, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James Watkins

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is James Watkins. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Watkins (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alan Soble

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alan Soble. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alan Soble. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

CEASE YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS NOW

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JBsupreme (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

To be specific, you are making false accusations about me, stooping so low as to resort to name calling me as a "vandal". In point of fact I have well over 20,000 edits here, many of which have been to reverse real, actual vandalism and report it to WP:AIV. That you disagree with my edits or don't like the fact that I am upholding WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and now WP:NPA policy is your problem, not mine. We also have standards for reliable sources, notability, discourage autobiographies, and so on. Again, I am sorry may not agree with these policies and standards, but it is no excuse for you to constantly refer to my edits, well within policy mind you, as "vandalism" just because you do not like them. If you disagree with my view on Misplaced Pages, fine, but grow up. JBsupreme (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)\

Final warning

Consider this a final warning about accusations against JBsupreme (talk · contribs).Toddst1 (talk)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Alan Soble. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Further, I see a pattern of abusing reversions using WP:TW. Please review WP:Revert and change your editing patterns immediately. Toddst1 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I won't be disturbing your talk page any further this afternoon, I just wanted to respectfully say thanks for the withdrawal of your comments. I hope that we may be able to find middle ground between us (and the community at large) in the future. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate addition of WP:OR and misattribution of sources

I have reverted this edit of your on Haun Saussy. Tupper Saussy is not mentioned in either of those two sources you cite. Given this and your recent, related accusations against JBsupreme (talk · contribs), I find your recent editing highly disruptive and will block you if I see any further inappropriate reversions of others' edits or insertion of un-sourced material related to WP:BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2010

Python and whitespace

When people attack python, usually the thing they attack is the whitespace-for-blocks thing. I can see how that might reasonably go into a Criticism section or something, but it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. EG this SE Radio podcast about scripting languages. I've put together a web page (there are others) about why the whitespace issue shouldn't be a nail in Python's coffin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strombrg (talkcontribs) 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This comment on article content is best addressed on the relevant article talk page Talk:Python (programming language). I disagree that the longstanding and frequently discussed feature you have removed from lead should be relegated to a footnote, but in any case, that's a article talk not user talk matter. LotLE×talk 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


Judith Butler

Dear Lulu. I noticed, that you decided to delete an interview with Judith Butler. While I share your opinion about the specific interview, it wasn't even linked in the article or used as a citation/source, I couldn't help but thinking, that the interview might be useful in the future .... for someone else. Would a dedicated section "Interview" section above the references be a better solution, assuming we also feature the interviews linked already in the article? Thank you. Sholomsholom (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Barry Soetoro

I have nominated Barry Soetoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Carpenter named articles

Hello,

Would you be so kind to review and comment List of Carpenter named articles which is pending a deletion review here. I would be happy with a merge back to the way it was with partial listings. But any comments welcome. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you.

P.S. You are mentioned once in relation to a prior incident, and as such I am required to notify you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflation

Please help me understand how to resolve the questions your edit implies. See Talk:Conflation#Euler and Venn diagrams. --Tenmei (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Python add5 syntax.png

Thank you for uploading File:Python add5 syntax.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio

I have collapsed the published works section per the suggestion of Tothwolf (talk · contribs) at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio. I hope that is okay. Cunard (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A common problem

Dear Wikipedist editor, I want to submit to your attention an our common problem: disruptive contributions and edit warring operated by user Derek farn (talk). This latter shows systematically a provoking behaviour and lacking of respect for other people’s work, typical of vandalism. I’ve sent this communication to many people having the same problem in order to organize a collective protest/action request directed to e.g. the Arbitration Committee or Requests for comment/User conduct (this latter procedure requires the participation of at least two users) or to the Misplaced Pages Community. If you agree with this initiative please contact me at this dedicated email address: clipeaster-1971 AT yahoo DOT com. In order to avoid creating of a forum section dedicated to Derek farn I suggest you to delete this communication once you’ve read it and, then, be in contact via email. Any suggestion are welcomed. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

As another user pointed out to me that suggesting to be in contact outside wikipedia is not a correct way, for transparency reasons, so I conclude that we need to correspond via talk page. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Raphael Samuels.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Raphael Samuels.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

MAGIC programming language

Hi! I read Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MAGIC (programming language). I looked at the list of articles about MAGIC but had trouble finding reliable sources. Do you know of any reliable sources about this language? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Python add5 syntax.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Python add5 syntax.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BDD (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Add5t.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:CitationTool/Race and intelligence

User:CitationTool/Race and intelligence, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:CitationTool/Race and intelligence and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:CitationTool/Race and intelligence during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. aprock (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Danny Yee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danny Yee is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Danny Yee (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Echo listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Echo. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Echo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Izno (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy. Since you had some involvement with the Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:ESCurtis 021-150px.png

Notice

The file File:ESCurtis 021-150px.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ESCurtis 021-150px.png

A tag has been placed on File:ESCurtis 021-150px.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Misplaced Pages having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:ESCurtis 021-125px.png

Notice

The file File:ESCurtis 021-125px.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

I'm Sorry for getting mad at you in 2006.

CJK (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Add5.png

Notice

The file File:Add5.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Add5t.png

Notice

The file File:Add5t.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Add5t.png

Notice

The file File:Add5t.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Old image not useful.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Udwadia–Kalaba equation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Udwadia–Kalaba equation is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Udwadia–Kalaba equation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Tercer (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Zizek Bibliography: deletion of Russia Today publications

Hello Lulu,

I write to you, because you have been editing the Slavoj Žižek Page. I'm editing the Zizek bibliography. Here I also mention the op-ed publications on Russia Today. There is a WP editor who holds the opinion, that these edits violate Misplaced Pages:RSP. I can't see how this is applicable. You can read my argument here. The editor doesn't respond.

If you have an interest in the subject, I would be happy, if you could contribute your opinion. If you don't have an interest, maybe you know someone else who might have?

With kind regards.

--Quin451 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Rethinking Marxism Conflict of Interest

Dear Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters,

The entries for Rethinking Marxism and Jack Amariglio are flagged for conflict of interest. I have created these along the same time I set up the Stephen A Resnick entry—which you used to create the now very developed Richard D. Wolff entry. I wonder if you could do anything to improve the Rethinking Marxism and Jack Amariglio entries so that they are not marked anymore?

Many thanks,

Ymadra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymadra (talkcontribs) 18:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list

Hi Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Misplaced Pages in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Courage to Care Award

Notice

The article Courage to Care Award has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Two press releases make a poor notability case, and I only see trivial mentions elsewhere.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Renominated Project: Starfighter for deletion

Hi, I'm renominating this article for deletion. You can participate here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Measuring programming language popularity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Measuring programming language popularity is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Measuring programming language popularity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AtlasDuane (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Categories: