Revision as of 16:35, 16 October 2005

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 /

Sandbox

/sandbox1

New Stuff

Re: Yeah, right?

Like i just posted on the AfD page: Just the fact that you're so dedicated to making sure the article stays seems to justify my claim that its for vanity. I have a degree in history...does that mean I should list myself amongst the most notable 20th century historians and create an article about myself...no! You just don't seem significant enough to warrant having your own article. The very idea that you edit it and keep editing it to me indicates its just for self promotion. If we made a page for every minor person who works in every occupation, we'd have so many rubbish articles. Where do we draw the line? I have no idea who this Tonya person is, and I don't know why you think she'd feel the need to contact me, i'm simply trying to keep the integrity of wikipedia intact. The very arrogant and conceited way you present yourself is the number one reason i think the article needs to go. And yes, I have taught classes and have books published, they might be on local history topics in WV, but nevertheless, if I made an article for myself because I just thoguht I deserved it, who's to stop ANYONE from doing the same. --ScottyBoy900Q 17:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If you ever obtain a Ph.D. in history, you certainly should list yourself as a 21st century historian. Not one of the most notable ones, most likely, but as one of them. Until then, no, you're not a historian. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Do you realize how many hundreds of thousands of people, even with Ph.D.'s, are not listed here. Why should we make an exception for you so you can have your own article? --ScottyBoy900Q 18:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who writes articles with a readership over 100,000 should have an article on Misplaced Pages. It's really about as simple as that. Somewhere (I could dig it up), there is actually a recommendation of 5000 readers/viewers/listeners as a threshhold, which is probably on the low side. But 100k is a slam-dunk in my mind. If that person has a book, Ph.D., and relative prominence in a national political issue, those are supporting facts. But the readership itself is both necessary and sufficient, in my mind... not because it's me, but of anyone (not that someone necessarily does have an article with that readership; but they necessarily should).

In response to your last message on my talk page: I hear what you're saying. If everyone else agrees with you, the AfD vote will be shot down and you won't have anything to worry about and I'll appologize and we'll move on. (Also, your opposing vote to my adminship is understandable as you are upset I have nominated your article for AfD. Don't let that stand in the way of all the other good work i've done here though as it comes off as childish on your part.) --ScottyBoy900Q 18:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that as soon as you put the article on AfD, you wrote messages to the talk pages of all the editors you could locate who would seem likely to vote Delete really does not suggest good faith, and particularly is unbecoming of an administrator. However, if you can tell me honestly that you were not recruited to place the AfD (presumably in a side-channel to WP) by someone with an unrelated animus towards me, I will withdraw my vote on your administratorship. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I can say with absolute certainty that none of the former opposers contacted me. I ran across the page clicking randon articles looking for things to edit. And the reason I contacted those people was to see if since the article withstood the previous vote, if they had changed their minds after seeing other peoples arguments. I also went ahead and contacted all the people who had voted to keep you. that way it doesnt look like im only trying to get people to vote against you. --ScottyBoy900Q 18:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Afd

Hi David, I know this is a difficult situation for you and think you've shown very good faith in withdrawing the oppose vote to the nomination for adminship. Glad to see that some people are rowing in with Keeps now. Not really my business but could I suggest you consider removing the possible real name of the person up for adminship from the talk page? Regards, Dlyons493 Talk 21:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? Scott Rubin's name? Given that his user page says he just graduated WVU, and gave his email addresses, it took about 30 seconds of detective work on the internet to figure out what I (presumably) did. It's not exactly like I revealed anything secret, or that took any special skill.

Not hard to make the deduction, but perhaps in the interest of helping to de-escalate you might consider blanking that out? I think it would be a nice gesture but, of course, it's entirely your decision. Best Wishes, Dlyons493 Talk 22:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I know I should learn de-escalation. I defintitely fail on this front. But there's something dissimulative in his comments to the AfD, and to this and his talk page, I think: comparing a book publishished by Addison Wesley (perhaps the best publisher of computer texts in English) to something that may have been printed by a local vanity press without an ISBN; comparing a University Professor job to whatever he did (maybe some kind of volunteer tutoring, or something like that). It just feels dishonest in tone; and in thinking about it, I tend to think it doesn't make for a good WP administrator (not the vanity book or tutoring, those are perfectly worthwhile things; the false insinuation around them). Also, for good administrator material, I would have hoped he would realize his nomination was contrary to notability guidelines, and changed his own vote rather than push it just as vehemently as I did on my side (I'm absolutely tempermentally unqualified to be an administrator, I'll happily confess to that). The comments about the dissimulation are kinda relevant to keep. Anyway, they won't go away from the edit history in any case. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to be as civil about this as possible. The reason I've pursued it beyond just the listing is because of your somehwat arrogant attitude towards the situation. I was never dishonest in explaining who I was or what i've done. I have had books printed here in Morgantown and am in the process of having two more come out. I have taught here at the University for the last two years as well. Nothing I have ever said on here as been dishonest in tone. I can obviously understand how you could get upset about something like this, but as mentioned on the Guide to Deletion, you have completely failed in the "Please do not take it personally" area. This was just a candidate for deletion that I was opening up to vote on. It doesn't look like it's gonig to pass, and as I said to you previously, I'm fine with that, and I'll appologize after the voting is over. You just seem to have completely taken total offense to this which was most certainly not the issue I was trying to get out. As far as the admin issue, I do feel that I'm qualified as I have been around for a while and have plenty of experience. You can read the questions at the bottom of my nomination so you can see what I plan to do if selected. This conversation I feel has come up solely because I am runing for an admin position. If you would have been on there voting and I would not have listed your page for deletion, I doubt you would be so against it, which once again is totally understandable. I just don't want it to prevent me from doing other good work in the future here. I'll be more than willing to talk to you privately via e-mail if you would like to continue the conversation, as you have pointed out my email address is clearly on my user page. --ScottyBoy900Q 23:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It's quite true that I would not have ever heard of you if not for the AfD. Or at least I wouldn't have today. And quite honestly (you can see this from my edit history, of course), I'm not in the habit of voting on Admin nominations. But looking at your brief behavior around this, it just doesn't feel like a temperamental fit for an administrator. Not that I think all the existing admins have the right fit either. Obviously, my edit of that page is somewhat "accidental"... but then, just about everything I do on WP is similar: one thing gets me interested in some other thing that I never planned to edit.

I do think there is a slight dishonesty in your rhetorical excess, as I comment above to Dlyons493. Being admitted to a Masters program really just ain't close to achieving a Ph.D., maybe that will become clear to you later in your life; and a book from one of the most prestigious publishers in the world isn't the same as a local-interest no-ISBN book... I'm sure your accomplishments are quite worthwhile, probably better than I could have said when I was 25 y.o., for that matter. A half million readers later, I'm wiser than I was though. Arguing noteriety on the basis that what you've done is "just the same" is dissimulative (you don't really believe it either, I am confident). You might well merit an article long before you are 40 y.o., but probably not yet.

I can see in your history that you've been a very useful and valuable WP editor. I certainly don't mean to demean that in the slightest. But I think a little more subtlety and negotiation skill is good to gain before being an admin. As I well confess, I'd be crappy at that role: I'm brusque and often impolitic. But I still know the right trait when I see it :-). That said, I assume that my one oppose vote won't stop your administratorship. I'm not sure what ratio they are looking for, but the majority are clearly for you. And I'll wish you great success in that role. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

This is to advise you that a Request for Arbitration has been filed against you by an anonymous user, who seems unable or unwilling to inform you themselves. The details can be found at WP:Arb#67.177.35.25_vs.__Fvw.2C__Pgk.2C__Exabit.2C__Kebron.2C__Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters.2C_Mjpieters.2C_and__Redwolf24. Rob Church 22:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, Mr. Merkey (claiming to be various parties other than himself: his lawyer, his wife, a friend, and admirer, etc) has also tried RfC, RfM, legal threats sent to Jimbo Wales, and whatnot (all quickly discarded). I think Talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is the right place to discuss any issues that may actually exist regarding the corresponding article. All the adminstravia is silly to use. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime, Jeff is only getting himself banned for longer periods of time; especially if this RfArb was to be accepted. --MJ 23:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC).

Boundary

You wrote: Delete, even the 5k boundary is ridiculously low. --fvw* 13:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, sure. 5k is indeed low. But do you honestly believe that 500k readers doesn't qualify for notability?! (which is what I have, and discuss in the AfD). I guess you're welcome to vote that way, but it's just plain weird. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I see only a 250k figure, but considering that's just the number of web hits from unique IPs I don't consider that readers, at least not in the same way that number of books sold is. --fvw* 15:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That 250k number is the unique IPs to gnosis.cx. But nothing is first published at gnosis.cx; it's just the site that I have the server logs for. IBM developerWorks is where the most stuff is first published, and the articles I have published there have most certainly been read by more than 250k distinct human beings (but I don't have the server logs to get exact numbers): it's probably the most popular site for software developers (the other contender being O'Reilly's ONLamp, where I've also published (but fewer articles at the latter). As to eyeballs/IP addresses: the ratio is not obvious. Some people can obviously visit multiple times under a dynamic IP address; but in other cases groups of people at a company with a common gateway can visit but show as the same IP address. I don't know how those two things balance, but in order-of-magnitude terms, it gives the right sense of actual humans.

I just believe this AfD claim (and your vote), is really absurd. If some minor SciFi writer had a novel that sold 1/10th my readership, this wouldn't be a serious question. Or if an indy band had sold records to 1/10th my readership. Or a video game sold to 1/10th my readership (or as Mel Etitis points out: a character in a video game that sold 1/10th my readership). Or a porn actor viewed by 1/10th my readership. But because I am a WP editor as well, people vote to delete the page. Or maybe because most of my publication is in "new media" (i.e. online); I agree that something someone can read for free online should be counted at a somewhat lower ratio than a book, or even magazine, they bought on paper, but it's not like developerWorks (which as a whole, certainly has millions of readers), is some little obscure blog! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Google scholar

Hi, It was a quick count based mainly on Python and XML. There were quite a few people who clearly weren't you, and some who might have been. But once I'd found enough to establish notability on the academic front I didn't feel a need to go into further disambiguation. There clearly were lots of Googles that people were going to find themselves but they tend not to use Scholar. Dlyons493 Talk 20:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK... I'm pretty sure that most of those people who "clearly weren't me" are me. I've done a bunch of stuff. The ones about elections are me, and those about several philosophy areas, and about AIDS, and about all the various computer programming stuff. Looking myself, it really did seem only to be an ethologist/biologist "DB Mertz" who is not me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Category:Totalitarian dictators

The vote for deletion failed. Good faith editing of the page requires that you make an effort to produce a page worthy of being kept on wikipedia. If you aren't willing to edit it in good faith and are resolved on deleting it. The edits such as you have done are vandalism.--Silverback 19:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The vote decision was delete. Please read the CfD page for details. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought the criterion was not met? Wasn't 75% required?--Silverback 19:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, consensus decision is considered 75-80%, but it's not a rigid formula (e.g. votes from sockpuppets are discarded, while those of experienced admins may sway a close vote). The judgement of the admin was delete. Please see the CfD record. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. The talk page gave me the impression that the vote had failed. I've examined the history. It looks like the vote was closed on the 30th, and then some non-kosher stuff took place. Why was the vote changed, and if it is final, why was the category still around?--Silverback 20:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not an admin, nor particularly the one who made the decision. But my understanding was that the vote was initially around 73% for deletion, but the last half dozen or so votes were all delete. Another admin extended the voting period for a bit longer (unusual, but not unheard of), and the remaining votes were substantially in the delete direction. The closing admin stated that s/he left the category page in place for "a while" to allow a challenge to the deletion. I have no idea what the adminstrative mechanism for such a challenge is; and frankly, given the best you might eek out in a re-vote is, say, 26% keep votes (i.e. still obviously a minority opinion, even if not consensus in the other direction), I would leave it be. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

.../Silverback and 172 talk about Totalitarian dictators on my talk page

Autobiography

Hi Lulu, the quote doesn't change the guideline, though, it just describes it, and it has a reference, so I'm not sure I see the problem with it. SlimVirgin 08:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

By quoting Jimbo (partially out of context), the brand new editor attempts to insinuate that editors must vote in favor of the guideline, out of an implied argument from authority. However, I will certainly defer to your edit and not remove the quote again. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)