Revision as of 03:54, 28 January 2006

Archives

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

Archive 1 / Archive 2 / Archive 3 / Archive 4 / Archive 5 /

Archive 6 / Archive 7 / Archive 8 / Archive 9 / Archive 10 /

Archive 11 / Archive 12 / Archive 13 / Archive 14 / Archive 15 /

Archive 16 / Archive 17 / Archive 18 / Archive 19 / Archive 20 /

Sandbox

• /sandbox2
• /silver_lining

New Stuff

MONGO post RfA

I'm speechless at the outcome...all I can say is I'm sorry.--MONGO 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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".

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). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:03, 24 January 2006 (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, Ward Churchill...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 List of dictators. 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!--MONGO 06:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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 :-)).

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.

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: List of animals (Borges)). 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 :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrat on RfA non-consensus

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! Cecropia 05:49, 24 January 2006 (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.Voice of All 16:37, 24 January 2006 (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).

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). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:54, 24 January 2006 (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, Pete.Hurd 04:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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. Anticomm. 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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! - brenneman 22:38, 24 January 2006 (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:

1. External political opinions
2. "Getting even" for my prior insistence on WP:NPOV and WP:V
3. Concerns about autobiography and edit counts
4. "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). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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!

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.

Oh, and check out User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform. Too late for you, of course. brenneman 01:56, 25 January 2006 (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.

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).

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. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't succeed (econ thread)

As a fellow Marxist - Leninist, I was sorry to hear that your RfA did not reach consensus. My first RfA also failed, but I got through the second time. I would advise you to wait 2-3 months minimum and then try again. I will certainly support you again. --rogerd 05:38, 25 January 2006 (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. --rogerd 05:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See How Can You Be in Two Places at Once When You're Not Anywhere at All by The Firesign Theatre --rogerd 05:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, I'm suffering from foot-in-mouth disease. Should have looked at the links. Still, I think it was Abbie Hoffman who first used the phrase "Groucho Marxist", and he wasn't exactly Republican. Would it help if told you I was born in Manhattan.... Kanas? :-) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

good god! an economist and a republican voting for a marxist. yea verily do the lion and the lamb lie together at wikipedia. jimbo hath wrought a miracle. Derex 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Marx in everyone's "top 10 economists" list :-). Just personal trivia: well-known Marxist economist Rick Wolff 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 tome like that (writing it was hard enough). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

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 coase). i'm just not completely kook ;)

Do you know Doug Henwood's coining of the term "sado-monetarism"? I think it really gets to the heart of Chicago :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

coffee out nose, onto keyboard. damn you! that's good. Derex 14:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw. I was under the impression that UU also had at least a klatch of the Marxy economists, if not a whole coven. No? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:27, 26 January 2006 (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? Derex 02:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Derex 23:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

JDG (talk · contribs)

Hi. Sorry the WP:RFA 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 User:JDG, so I was hoping you might have a word with him. I'm concerned about this edit and the following warning JDG left for User:Zscout370. 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. Jkelly 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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. JDG 20:10, 25 January 2006 (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.

...(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... Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:37, 25 January 2006 (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. JDG 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep it up! (Revealing results)

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. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Not to worry... I'm disappointed, but I've gotten over it. So many articles left to fix :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Kuhn, Foucault, Borges

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). --Pierremenard 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it not the case that Jorge Luis Borges writes in his Otras Inquisiciones ("Other Inquisitions") that a doctor named Franz Kuhn gave Michel Foucault a volume of a Chinese encyclopedia that Focault used for classifying animals? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you riffing on us, or is this true? It's hilarious if true, and we should put something about it in the List of animals (Borges) article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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. --Pierremenard 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It was in Borges essay "El idioma analítico de John Wilkins" Read online]. Focault refers this in the preface of The Order of Things. There is an interesting article about this here ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 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!≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

General post-RfA appreciation messages

Damn, I thought you'd be a shoe-in. -- Danny Yee 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's a shame you didn't get in, but you can always try again later. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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. haz (user talk) 12:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with above, and please do not loose heart, and please continue with renewed zeal. --Bhadani 16:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I too am sorry that you didn't succeed. I wish you luck in the future. Sam Korn 10:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's a shame your nomination failed, but I'll be on the lookout for the next one. --King of All the Franks 05:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ditto here. Grutness...wha? 08:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.

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. - dharmabum (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

jayanthv86

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.--Jayanthv86 10:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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--Jayanthv86 09:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

from jayanthv86 2:

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.

Anyways,ur photo and messagewas extremely beutiful. i liked it.--Jayanthv86 19:07, 25 January 2006 (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 -- max rspct leave a message 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Nah, normally at least 75% minimum for consensus. 03:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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? Karmafist 04:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, let's. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome (Pete.Hurd)

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

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. Bearcat 19:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Ward Churchill, please review WP:NPOV

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.

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. (Lulu on Doug Bell talk)

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)

"suggesting his viewers to e-mail the college to cancel Churchill's invitation"

to

"imploring his viewers to e-mail the college to cancel Churchill's invitation"

Absolutely correct! "Imploring" is just terribly POV-laden, and I entirely agree with that change. I didn't put that word in there in the first place, but you're right that I hadn't (yet) taken it out either. I certainly did not put back "imploring" when taking out "outraged" and "uproar" from your changes. Actually the "flood of emails" was there from who knows when, which is very POV-ish too (and I took it out). Saying "Campos was appalled" is POV if stated as WP editorial opinion, but it's OK to say that Campos stated that he was appalled (which is what is there now). See the difference?

I'm not going to get into pointless back and forth by repsonding point-by-point to your comments, but I do need to correct another factual inaccuracy you've introduced: I never used the word "uproar". And the word "outrage" was used by O'Reilly to describe his reaction, but it was used at a later point in time (at the point where he did initiate a campaign, which was also a later point in time than where his "campaign" is referenced in the article) so I left it out. – Doug Bell 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no... the point is that the word uproar is too POV, not that you introduced it. Sorry, I guess I misstated that in my above comment (I had just looked at my diff, not yours... just explaining why I made the changes I did). The linked article does not use the word "outrage" (or any forms of the word). It's quite possible, even likely, that O'Reilly subsequently used that word... if so, it would be perfectly OK to point that out in the text. A citation to a specific later program might be helpful, but a general "O'Reilly described himself as "outraged" during some segments on this topic" or the like should be fine, if true.

Please don't try to turn editing into some kind of pissing contest. Fine, you have a bigger dick, you're smarter, your book sold more copies, the games your wrote are really great, and you're prettier too. I don't care in the slightest (while wearing my WP hat) about any of that; I just want articles to follow WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not a pissing contest for me. I simply can't let stand without comment the patronizing remarks you've made regarding my factual, verifiable, referenced, well-intended, and NPOV contributions to the Churchill article after seeing the petty edit wars you've engaged in on the article. I was so much more inline with WP:NPOV and WP:V than you have been on this article, so I wasn't in a mood for a lecture from you. The advice you left me has merit, I emplore you to heed it. (And I'm willing to let the AfD on Doug Bell proceed on its merits and not edit the AfD 37 times as you did for the AfD for David Mertz, so don't accuse me of vanity and pissing contests.) – Doug Bell 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the content you added was indeed NPOV and verifiable, and I happily left that part (in fact, I'm happy you added it). I changed the parts that were to POV in tone. Despite the personal attacks like you make in the immediately preceding comment, I really hope you learn to edit even political topics in a encyclopedic fashion. Good luck. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly never put back "imploring" if anyone took it out. There were a bunch of vandals who rolled back the entire article to some much earlier version and/or inserted long POV-mongering digressions. I suppose it's conceivable that somewhere in the middle of paragraphs of doggerel one of them actually made something better; but you're right that I revert vandalism. Notice that I did not revert your additions, which contained good information, I just toned down the excessively POV parts. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You can check the history for yourself. I was nowhere near thorough and I found at least four occassions where you changed it from "suggested" → "implored". So you pick: careless or deliberate? And I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at you characterizing my use of "outraged" and "appalled" as "excessively POV" when these were the words actually used by the people I was attributing them to to describe their reactions. – Doug Bell 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be very interested in seeing what diffs you are thinking of. If you would put them here, that would be helpful. There's no question that "suggested" is more neutral than "implored". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I was going to post them here when I found them, but it seemed like that was just inviting a pissing contest, which I'm not interested in. Some of the dates were in mid-December (≈16-22, +others) as I recall, but I would have to go search for them again and it's not my problem. I have no interest in investing yet more time in this discussion, which is the most pointless use of my time so far on WP. – Doug Bell 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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:

Good job with adding the reference. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.

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—an attribution in Campos case which used the exact word (appalled) that Campos himself used in describing his reaction to Churchill's statement.

Please chill on this! I never did what you keep claiming here. Not once. Not ever. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

I don't really care about the "mounting a campaign" thing. You seem to think I wrote the whole article or something; I'm actually a late arrival to it, but I've assumed a certain felt responsibility to keep it non-vandalized. I think the idea intended is that O'Reilly ran multiple programs on this topic, not that he made the comment in that one segment. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So it is with some degree of irony that I now find you leaving a comment on my User talk:Doug Bell#Ward_Churchill_and_WP:NPOV lecturing me on being careful about editing 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—either purposefully, or because of not bothering to determine what are facts and what are POV.

You're new to WP, and haven't worked on political topics. It's good advice; hopefully advice that you'll figure out the merit of sooner rather than later.

And now I see that you have nominated the Misplaced Pages page about me for deletion (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.

The AfD discussion is the place to indicate that. I don't find the principle developer title notable by WP standards, but other editors may disagree. I'm not sure why you are trying so hard to find a personal conflict here with lots of accusations that border on WP:PA. It's really not good Wikikette. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I can see now why your bid for Adminship was declined. – Doug Bell 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(dedent) OK, I'm really not insisting on having the last word, but you are tossing another WP policy at me in an inappropraite context. My comments above do not constitute a personal attack anymore than if I were to say that you made a personal attack on me in your last post by referencing WP policy. My statement regarding your editting of the AfD on David Mertz is simply stating a fact, and then making a statement regarding my intent not to attempt to influence the outcome of the process unduly simply because I happen to be active on Misplaced Pages. You tell me what in WP:PA I've done that constitutes an attack or quit tossing around the names of WP policies. – Doug Bell 02:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I don't care that you stated that I edited the AfD on David Mertz. I have no idea if the count you give is accurate, but it might well be. Moreover, I do not believe that Doug Bell violates WP:NPOV. "Vanity" has a slightly special meaning on WP, but generally it's not a criticism I would make of Doug Bell (that's why I described it as "possible minor vanity concern"... I can point you to some autobiographies that actually have a POV problem). There's actually an unfortunate tendency on AfD for people to vote on a kneejerk misreading of WP:AUTO; I want other editors' input on the notability of your bio, but I tried to urge them away from voting on what I think is a silly basis.

The part of your comment that I felt was a personal attack was... well, the part that attacked me. But fine, let's just drop it; this site really is here for creating an encyclopedia, not for schoolyard posturing. Please won't you try to take a breath, and act like a professional, which I presume you've had occasion to do in much of your life? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Dropped. – Doug Bell 03:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)