Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:48, 10 October 2008

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is still trying to do less here, dunno if that qualifies as wikibreak

Under bridges is a good place for trolls

New Stuff

See AN/I where I mention you

I've made a complaint about Kossack4Truth's recent edit of your comment at the Talk:Barack Obama page to complain about K4T. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kossack4Truth disruption on the Barack Obama talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Your report on ANI is very reasoned and calm, and I appreciate that you are working toward a good article and willing to consider compromises. I apologize for initially making the overly hot-headed comment... the process has been frustrating for many editors, as I am sure you are aware. LotLE×talk 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, which I first saw a minute ago. I guess this note is pretty ironic, then. I took another look at your comments about WorkerBee74 on that page (based on Kossak4Truth's unblock request messages) and looked further and found quite a few comments worth apologizing for. I posted them under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#LotLE's recent behavior. I was asked what should be done about it, and I've just replied I'm not sure but perhaps a civility restriction of some kind, otherwise a topic ban, but I'm totally flexible about what should be done. Please comment there. Noroton (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not true that other editors had a worse record for incivility than you. Your comments, when they were uncivil, were the most uncivil, although sometimes some other comments were just as bad. Other people commented more, including me, and if you piled up all the uncivil comments of just about anyone active on that page, the pile would be higher than yours, but that's only because you didn't comment much in those controversies. When you do make uncivil comments, they may be fewer, but they're bigger deposits into the bank. My own comments were not nearly as bad as yours, they were in response to some pretty outrageous statements and when I looked back on them and found some were impolite -- which is even less of a problem than incivility -- I went back and apologized.

Unfortunately, though I'm sure you imagine it the case that your comments were less uncivil, that is certainly not my perception, and I am quite certain it is not the perception of any other editors who read them. It's easy to imagine that your posts were "in response to some pretty outrageous statements", but your own are just responses... it doesn't look that way from the outside.

Actually, I'm a bit disappointed that you respond to me here on my talk page by trying to provoke things rather than calm them. Worth noting. LotLE×talk 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have nearly the problem you do with self-restraint, although I would say that many months ago I came close. I think I've mentioned your behavior three times on AN/I, each time including diffs and restraining my language, which is what I think you're alluding to as "gentle" and "escalating conflict while pretending not to". I wouldn't characterize my reports that way at all. I was clearly pointing out your behavior and also trying to do it in a way that didn't add another layer of drama on it, the way WorkerBee74 has been doing at AN/I. When I thought you were turning away from uncivil behavior I didn't escalate it by mentioning the last attack. If you think I'm making the Talk:Obama page more uncivil, please feel free to report me to admins -- maybe you'll find some horrible comment of mine I've forgotten about. I do think I was pretty snide in some of my first comments responding to you on Talk:Obama (around the time of my posts about the "fat farm" for articles like Harry S. Truman that I suggested could go in it). Please accept this late apology for that. If you find anything else, you could also tell me on my talk page -- I've responded constructively when other editors have done that. I told you why I reported your comments; I didn't like doing it; when you apologized I put your comment on the AN/I page. Don't call my trying to be fair to you, even after you've insulted me (something far worse than sarcasm), as somehow phony. I'm trying to be fair even when I think I'm being treated unfairly. As far as I'm concerned, you're forgiven for any comments you made about me and the slate is wiped clean. I can work with you, agree and civilly disagree with you without any rancor. And if you disagree with anything I've said in this post, feel free to tell me, although I don't think it's worth arguing about. I've said repeatedly that I don't know what sanctions administrators need to impose on editors, and when MastCell pressed me, I gave some ideas on what to do with you, but I said I'd be satisfied with what more experienced editors had to say, and I will. There was nothing phony about that, either. If you're civil, you and I shouldn't have any big problems with each other. I notice that when we stick to specifics we seem to be able to come to agreement. Noroton (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your last comment: Feel free to disabuse me of any misperceptions on my part, but that is the way I see it. I'm not trying to provoke -- I'm responding exactly to what you wrote and stating my disagreements with it where I think they're important. First you said (provocatively?) I was "escalating conflict while pretending not to", which sounded to me as if I were being called a phony, so I gave you a plain-spoken reply, which you tell me is "trying to provoke things", although it included an apology, an offer to listen to complaints and an observation/suggestion about how we best work together. Noroton (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Obama----

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weigh in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re

I didn't restore your edits, which inexplicably removed the key phrase "although not accused of any wrongdoing." It's moot though; I'm in the process of retiring my account, so please allow my User_talk page to remain deleted from this point forward. Shem^(talk) 06:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ejscript

After helping with this software-related AfD, would you be able to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterModule? Thanks in advance :). Ironho lds 10:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I voted and agree with you. I wonder if this not borders on WP:CANVASSing though. I guess it's fine, you're neutral in your presentation, reserving any arguments for the relevant page; and I've shown an interest in the subject area. Maybe I'm a little walking-on-eggshells because of some of gross canvassing on another `ongoing AfD I've voted in. LotLE×talk 17:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Vote

Nice work. :o) --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This ingenious tactic outmaneuvered me, weakening the argument for my specific edit. It's difficult for me to argue against your collapsing ARCON into Project Vote on the main page when I've been arguing that they are closely related.Bdell555 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this some sort of weird criticism that I created an article on a notable organization once I noticed it was missing?! How conniving of me to create an article for Project Vote. LotLE×talk 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No criticism here. You served Wikipedia well in creating the article. I was just acknowledging that you scored a point on me but perhaps that wasn't intentional.Bdell555 (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. And to Clubjuggle as well, since s/he added the link to the Obama article and helped with editing it. There's no game or points involved, just making the encyclopedia as comprehensive, objective, and clear as possible. LotLE×talk 01:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral headers, please

Would you please look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages, where it says "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."? Could you please change "Guilt by association" to something neutral sounding? Thanks, Noroton (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Like what? The header exactly describes the topic discussed under it. 06:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this was my attempt at it. [1] The header was itself an assertion that that's what was going on (that including this info is implying "guilt by association") and that is very much in dispute. I don't think it's important enough to argue over, so if you have a better neutral idea, feel free to change it again. Noroton (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please restore my comments

I am assuming good faith, but I do not understand your position. I would request that you restore my comments as there is no reason to remove them. If it were your talk page that would be ok, but it is a public page and you cannot remove them without my consent. John Smith's (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove them, but simply moved your comment to the section with your own comments. While it is not uncommon, it's just disruptive to add gigantic commentary and retort to each editors opinion in an AfD. I stated my reason for my vote completely and concisely. Feel free to explain your vote in your vote, but let the others be. LotLE×talk 06:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy with you moving them this one time. But this should be a discussion not a "vote and disappear" routine. It's not possible to have a discussion if comments and replies were not made to each other. In the future please do not shift comments around without asking. If you ask first editors will consider it, whereas if you decide they should be somewhere else they're liable to react more negatively. John Smith's (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe your comment was in any meaningful way a "discussion" of my stated opinion. It was just a mechanical retort that amounted to "But I really want the page deleted". As I said on your talk page, your "shepherding" is disruptive... just let everyone (including you) state their opinions/arguments, and let the closing admin decide how to handle it. LotLE×talk 07:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ex-ACORN Workers

I've reinstated the paragraph about the "Ex-ACORN workers". According to the source, they were, in fact, ACORN workers at the time the false voter registrations were submitted. They were "ex-ACORN workers" at the time of the news story, obviously because ACORN had fired them by then. If you have concerns about that we can discuss further on the talk page. Thanks for your help in cleaning that article up, it desperately needs it. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rezko again on Obama

A suggestion to keep everybody calm and sane here....regarding this edit,[2] although it was a weird edit to make I don't see anything to be gained about accusing the editor of bad faith. Whether warranted or not the accusation raises tensions, and we're perfectly capable of dealing with this right now without it. If people persist, that might be different. But I would save the harsh reactions for when they're both warranted and needed - not slips like this that could turn out to be nothing. If you could tone down / refactor your statement it would show that you're going out of your way to be courteous, which will go a long way to keeping out of trouble if things do get contentious again. Wikidemo (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rv on Cultural image

Your rv on the Obama page appears to have been based on a misunderstanding. There was no soapboxing involved. I was including relevant details pertaining to Obama's religion and church attendance. Trilemma (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your intention, the more concise version, as trimmed by Wikidemo, is much better. Actually, I think we could lose a few more words still. We are very sensitive to space in this article. LotLE×talk 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized

This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Case for ACORN proposed language, restated. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the talk page for "The case..." I will add something there. Actually, I expect to add a lot in that "Early life" article. That's an interesting period of Obama's life. Ryan Lizza's article in the New Yorker has a lot of interesting insights into how Obama succeeded in Chicago that tell you something about Obama's personality and talents. Those are the kinds of things that can't be adequately covered in the main article anyway. Lizza also had a good piece last year in The New Republic. I read a copy of that article on an Obama website last night. In one of those articles, it talks about how Obama got elected president of the Harvard Law Review, showing a real talent for politicking. The way he succeeded with Project Vote was pretty entrepreneurial -- he recruited fundraisers, raised a mint (apparently more than any other Project Vote operation) and operated independently of both the Daley machine and the black establishment -- then succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. That, plus the publicity from his first book, laid the foundation for his first run for office. The New York Times and Washington Post have also done interesting pieces on that period. Noroton (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see some of that stuff. I haven't read the articles you mention, but they sound very germane to the Early Life article. We obviously can't be as "writerly" as the New Yorker and the like, but the facts would still be interesting in encyclopedic dryness. I'll start watching that child, and see where it goes. I really do think that once something is there it: (a) puts worthwhile material in a relevant article; (b) makes it jibe to summarize the new stuff in the main bio. Thanks for your good work on this. LotLE×talk 18:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

PV is not a branch of the Spanish Inquisition

I read that while drinking some Diet Coke, and now I'm mopping it from my keyboard. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I was considering the Free Masons, but then I thought that a certain editor might adopt the claim as actually true :-). LotLE×talk 17:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

just to show my fairness

A little nugget for you that apparently no one else has found or has appeared on any Talk pages. It doesn't apply to Project Vote but it does to Barack Obama:

"... Project Vote, Obama’s employer in 1992.

In These Times is partisan, but I'll admit it says directly that Project Vote was Obama's employer.Bdell555 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I'd like to invite you to join Scjessey, Noroton and I in binding mediation of content disputes in the Barack Obama biography. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama visiting combat zone

Obama visiting the combat zone (place where people get killed I'm here now) is notable. Especially places like Afghanistan!--Ron John (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is an excellent place to work on user-editable descriptions of current events. I believe that with the unified login system, you should be able to access it using the same user account that you've established on WP. LotLE×talk 18:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tweakage

I find it hard to follow the text when reading "though" the expanded citation style, so it is more of a personal preference. Being a web developer, I love to remove extraneous whitespace whenever I can. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Being a Python programmer, I want spacing to represent semantics. Actually, that's equally true when I write ECMAScript, or HTML, or C, or Haskell, or anything else. Still, maybe you could skip making those changes just for their own sake... since other editors (like me) find the one more readable. I guess it's kinda like Brit/USAian spellings: both are fine if the article does it, but don't try to change what's there. LotLE×talk 00:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama edits, pics

Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. You have new messages at Floridianed's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lulu: please enter this on Barack Obama's page: Obama is 50% white from his mother’s side, 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% black on his father's side.

Curious how Arab isn't even mentioned on his Wiki page.

Jesse Jackson

Revision as of 06:53, 23 July 2008 (edit) (undo) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Talk | contribs) (who tried to create illusion of Jackson not supporting Obama's candidacy?!) [3]

You did: [4]

Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The second diff you gave is 404. Maybe something copied wrong. In any case, I'll accept your word that I messed up in a previous edit.... I'm "someone" too :-). LotLE×talk 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice from Curious bystander

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, please stop edit-warring on the Barack Obama article. Take it to the Talk page and reach consensus before making these edits. I have been watching this page for weeks and WB74, while troublesome, is not entirely to blame for the acrimony there. You haven't been entirely civil yourself. Curious bystander (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not aware of the new discussion there - Talk:Barack_Obama#Reversion. I think it's safe to say there's no consensus as yet for making the change or exactly what the final version should look like so please consider self-reverting or at least not revert warring further to make this change. We're expecting the same out of others on disputed changes they are making. Let's see if we can do this collaboratively. Also, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the "new editor" as having an "Interesting" edit history, as you do in this edit summary.[5] I'm not sure whether you're referring to User:Die4Dixie (who proclaims a religious bent, and opposition to Obama) or User:Curious bystander (a seemingly experienced editor with a new account as of July 10 who has been working on articles about gay subjects, one of the listed examples for creating a legitimate WP:SOCK account). The edits you revert are Die4Dixie's, which are discussed in the new thread. In case you're not aware, Die4Dixie and I are trying our hardest to let old disputes die and edit constructively. If there's any hope for stability on the page, with or without administrative intervention, we do have to get along. If there is article probation it will almost certainly come with a prohibition against revert wars on the main page or casting aspersions on other editors in edit summaries. Wikidemo (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the reversion by Curious bystander. However, it's not really about the edit history, but rather about WP:BLP. As I have discussed in the talk page thread you mention, the claim that previously occurred in the article seems to have been demonstrated to be either outright false, or at the least WP:SYNTH. LotLE×talk 01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no BLP issue - that's a red herring. And even if you personally feel there is you're on thin ice if you want to use that claim as a basis for edit warring. I'm pretty sure that if you and the other people on both sides persist we're headed for some combination of acrimony, blocks, AN/I reports, and article protection. It's not worth it over this kind of thing when we're supposed to discuss first on the talk page.Wikidemo (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's frustrating to see a few new SPA editors push for restoration of a weeks-old version that has accuracy and WP:WEIGHT problems that had been fixed for a while. The motive for trying to fix the older bad language is primarily your own excellent summary of the length spent on various persons in the bio. LotLE×talk 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, thanks. I do see you're concerned that this may be an incarnation of WB74. Given the state of WP:SOCK policy I think it would be considered legitimate for an IP user or even a registered user to create a new account to edit gay articles. I don't agree with that carve-out from SOCK but it's a sensitive issue and some powerful admins have a long history of operating multiple accounts that date back years. So unless you show some actual bad activities - trying to double-vote, both participating in the same time to avoid 3RR or an inflated sense of consensus or opposition, etc - people might forgive it. It could be someone else too, not WB74. I'd suggest you quietly collect diffs and evidence, and if it ever gets to the point where it's a big problem that's upset other people, and you think you can justify a checkuser, file a report then. But when an account is so new checkusers are often inconclusive. And I think the admins are avoiding the page because they think it's toxic - you saw how little interest there was in finding the sockpuppets even when it was pretty obvious. BTW, I think D4D is capable of being productive and certainly friendly if we give him a chance and he gives us a chance. For the life of me I can't understand why WB74 continues to be uncivil though. It's completely gratuitous and it undermines what he's trying to do. You might consider that your own tendency to bristle, even if justified, weakens the effectiveness of your arguments (or accusations, when you're ready to make them formally). Sorry if this is a little too personal but I don't want to see your thoughtful efforts on the article content get lost in all that fuss. Wikidemo (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I just pointed this out at the accused editor's page. There is no evidence at all for such accusation and I find it quite troubling. If there is real suspicion, I'm (one of) the first to notice, but keep it for myself till there is (if at all) any real indication of gaming the system. Till then I keep my potential doubt (which in this case I don't have) for myself and wish, others would do so too, keeping up the standards they would like to be treated themselves. Point made; Point taken? "Cheers", --Floridianed (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is clear evidence. Suspicion is healthy and normal. Making accusations without solid foundation is not. That's the line. At this point it's worth watching, but premature to draw conclusions or start any process. Also it's sometimes unwise to discuss things in detail onwiki. If it is a sockpuppet that will be clear later. If not, no harm no foul. Wikidemo (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Churchill

It is documented that Churchill claimed to be Muscogee Creek. The posting of the Creek Tribal document is relevant.

Secondly- The cause of the split in AIM is well documented and it did occur as a result of the support by Means, Churchill, and Morris of the CIA backed Contra Miskito group. Why do you keep hiding this. Churchill admits this when he is asked at lectures? --Ogitchidaag 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(Hope you don't mind to help him out by correcting his mistake but if you do just erase it and please accept my apology.) --Floridianed (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, don't mind. Thanks Floridianed. And apologies to Ogitchidaag for my omission. I meant to add back Ogitchidaag's comment, but got distracted trying to follow a bunch of odd/spurious admin reports by our good friend K4T. LotLE×talk 01:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(No appologize needed. I like to help out as I am apreaciated when someone does it on my page. Glad you're ok with it.) --Floridianed (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Being notified

I noticed you mentioned on Wikidemo's talk page that you hadn't been notified about that complaint by K4T at AN3. You should have been. I've been in that situation before and it made me mad. I actually brought it up at AN/I about a year ago and the response from at least a couple of admins was that they couldn't be bothered, which still rankles me. If I ever see a complaint filed against you, anywhere, and don't see that you've been notified, I'll do it myself. You'd think it would be pretty elementary fairness.

You were obviously right that two Obama/Petreus pics was one too many. You made a good case for not having Pfleger's name in the article, too, although I'm not sure it makes much difference. It seems to me it would be a good idea, if his name is removed, to link a few words that replace his name to his article, so readers could easily learn more about him. Noroton (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You have a good idea that I hadn't thought of. With WB74 "reverting on sight" my changes, I'll wait a while. But if we had the condensed description say something like "...after a a visiting orator mocked Clinton..." that would both avoid the false specificity and let readers get to Pfleger's article without undue work. LotLE×talk 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Respond

I responded to your recent comments/concerns on my talk page there. I appreciate your civil and courteous responses to my concerns.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: what to do

Sorry for the delay in replying. I wouldn't worry too much - if there's any cause for concern, or someone wants to see how you respond to concerns (however meritless they are), you'll almost certainly be notified on your talk page here. And you're probably right - sometimes things run smoother, for everyone's benefit, you only read it after the thread has closed. K4T meanwhile is under a topic ban.

I'm not sure I can give any advice that's unique to those situations - it's more general, but certainly something to keep in mind even in those situations. It obviously won't always work so smoothly, but it's an ideal (and isn't entirely impossible). :)

Starting discussions on the article talk page on something you've reverted as unencyclopedic asap (rather than waiting on someone else to question the revert) is very ideal - if they haven't responded and re-revert, they're clearly edit-warring. They and you should avoid reverting after that generally, unless it falls under BLP policy. Civil discussion is also ideal. If all that fails, then pursuing WP:DR is the way to go, or to get the attention of uninvolved admins to look into it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee report

You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfer the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW

I did respond to your linguistic questions on my talkpage a few days ago. I imagine you have been pretty busy. I would be interested in what you thinkDie4Dixie (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On BLP and Ayers

Well, it's late and I've got to get to bed. I hope I'm not mangling your points here, but here's my immediate reaction: BLP is about "unsourced or poorly sourced" claims. If I source them well, so that my statements don't go beyond what the sources say, I'm free and clear of any libel problem under U.S. law. It matters a great deal that Ayers is a public figure, but even if he weren't, the same statements have been made in news reports, commentary articles and book reviews in newspapers and magazines. He's had his opportunities to sue. Public figures have a harder time because they are able to make statements that are widely seen, and so they can protect their reputations that way. I've asked on the AN/I page if there is some specific statement I've made that is unsourced or poorly sourced, or if some other BLP stricture is the problem. I try to never go into my own background on Wikipedia, but I have a lot of experience working with situations where libel law needs to be considered.

I'm not bringing up Ayers to get a dig in but because I think Obama's association with him is important. I do actually think it's useful to have those links I added to the discussion because I do think this may come up again. I am very familiar with the online, reliable sourcing of this. I notice that you didn't seem to have a problem with Wikidemo's characterizations of Henry Kissinger, et al. You think the sourcing there is more reliable or Wikidemo's statements closer to the truth? (I think he said he was making changes to them.)

I do wish you had mentioned the AN/I thread to me, especially after you had complained about not being notified in another case and I had told you I'd notify you if I ever saw you mentioned in a thread like that one.

I think you, Wikidemo and I can disagree strongly without it getting personal. Noroton (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If I were to show you sources (that you would agree are reliable) that (a) stated the Weathermen conducted a campaign of bombings, (b) identified the Weathermen as a "terrorist" group, using that word, would that satisfy you on the point that Ayers, who was one of the leading members of the Weathermen, on its governing board, was a terrorist, according to reliable sources? I think being one of the leaders of a terrorist group qualifies. Please respond on my talk page. If I can provide that and you can drop your objections, then I think we can get past this. And could you tell me if there are other specific problems? Because I'm confused that what's being cited are long posts that say quite a lot, not all of which I think I should have to source. Is "unrepentant" a problem, for instance? Noroton (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, (a) and (b) above may not be the same exact sources, but all reliable. Noroton (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Showing sources for various facts that you could tenuously connect by WP:SYNTH would not satisfy my concern with libel (or WP:BLP as it's known on WP). I believe the most egregious claim that you have made in the comments in the diffs is "Anyway, this isn't primarily a matter of following laws but of committing abominable acts up to and including acts that resulted in death." Clearly, it is an unfounded personal opinion to claim that Ayers committed such acts (moreover, the conclusion strikes me as extremely unlikely as well). Something like stating your opinion that bombing property is still terrorism would be fine (I'd tend to disagree as my opinion, depending some on context), but the quoted comment clearly crosses the line. LotLE×talk 01:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He advocated violence and was one of the top leaders in a very hierarchical organization. That's not tenuous. Those are abominable acts. The local cells took orders from the central organization he was a part of. That's not tenuous. That means his actions led to that bombmaking which led to those deaths. No synth: [6] -- Noroton (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Archived ANI

Yeah, I realized that. Meanwhile, 3 other users decided to edit-war on whether it lives or stays in the archives. I've moved it to a separate page (should've done that first but I forgot we can do that!) I'll add your comment in. Oh, and thank you for the note. :) It was reassuring for me too! Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How is "lede" spelt?

The Word Detective writes: "[...H]aving worked as a proofreader for several years at the end of the 'hot type' era, I can vouch for the importance of the distinction between 'lead' and 'lede.' 'Leading' (pronounced like the metal) back then was thin strips of lead used as line spacers in typesetting machines. A proofreader's (or editor's) quick note to 'fix lead' could mean thus either that the first paragraph is garbled (poorly written or set in the wrong type) or that the lines are incorrectly spaced, two very different problems. And take it from me, typesetters working on a deadline hate ambiguity (often at top volume) and are not in the business of judging context to decode 'lead.' So I tend to believe the 'avoid confusion' explanation. The most important article on a front page is actually usually spelled 'lead' (or called the 'leader' in the US), by the way (so every 'lead' has a 'lede'). The 'leader' in a British newspaper is the main editorial." $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 21:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think using an obscure neologism where no actual confusion is possible just makes you look silly (there's no line-spacing issue on WP). YMMV. LotLE×talk 00:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

According to a blog by Tei Lindstrom (who says she "writes business and technical copy, journalism, plays, screenplays, and fiction"):

— Journalists enjoy screwing with layfolk....the only time journalists, English majors, copywriters, copyeditors, regular editors, or anal-retentive people will let you get away with misspelling is when WE have initiated the misspelling....
— Hed is short (and misspelled) for headline....
— The dek is short and misspelled...for declaration. This is a sentence or two just below the headline that summarizes what’s in the piece....
— [T]he lede is the grabber sentence.... It is supposed to be either shocking, informative, fascinating, or sexy....
— The nut graf is...for, get this, ‘nut paragraph.’ It basically means the paragraph that’s going to give you an overall sum-up of what’s to follow....
— The body is where all the real information is.
— The kicker is the closing sentence or sentences....

;^)

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 01:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Epilogue (or, -log, as it were)

Blogger and author Mark Liberman, professors of linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania, writes:

Whenever I've used one of these terms...using the idiosyncratic spelling, I've gotten email politely pointing out the spelling error, or asking me less politely what the heck I think I'm talking about.... It hasn't come up very much recently, because I've learned from experience and generally stopped using terms like hed, dek, lede, graf and tk, even in meta-journalistic commentary where these terms would be culturally appropriate. But in my April 6 post...I used "headline" in place of "hed", and no one complained about that. I considered using "sub-headline" or "sub-head", but after a brief struggle with my conscience, I decided to refer to the dek as "the deck", spelled in the normal rather than the journalistic way. Well...Jim Lewis politely corrected my spelling. In the journalistic sense, he explained, it should be "dek".

Which shows ya can't please everybody so just write the way you feel is right. <wink> $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI report

You have been mentioned in a WP:ANI report here. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oy

Although I don't "have it out for you" as a motivation to ask you this, Lulu, I am simply curious about what the content dispute is over at Project Vote. Would you consider dashing off a conversational memo to me to fill me in? (Only throw in a key diff or two if you really want...and, actually, I'll understand if you think such laziness as to not research the article and its history myself shouldn't be rewarded. I've also asked Bdell555 the same question here.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 22:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The talk page has a bunch of discussion on the agenda Bdell555 is trying to push. But in short, Bdell555 wants to make the claim that PV is an "arm" of ACORN (with a special attachment to that specific language rather than something non-metaphorical and citable). I am pretty sure that he wants this false claim because he believe that ACORN can be accused of corruption/fraud/something nefarious... which is mostly meant to push the reasoning ACORN(=bad)->PV->Obama.

In actual fact, PV is an independent 501(c)(3) organization, which means legally it cannot be an "arm" of any non-(c)(3) organization like ACORN. It is true that the two organizations have worked together on many occasions, and they are definitely of very similar political position (but ACORN addresses a much broader range of issues). It seems likely that the two organizations have had some common directors or staff, but no one has provided specific citations around that, so I'm speculating slightly on that particular connection.

Bdell555 is convinced, for whatever reason, of the self-evident (to him) wickednes of ACORN, and so hopes to tarnish PV with its brush. I think ACORN is a generally pretty good organization (as is PV), and no tarnish would come from a closer connection than actually exists. I simply do not want the PV article to contain false claims or WP:OR (I suppose partially because I created the PV article to fix a redlink; but mostly simply because I want every WP article to be be neutral and factually supported). LotLE×talk 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How intricate! And, well, to a layperson on the issue like me, your brief here sounds pretty convincing. (Disclosure: Yours is the only side I've heard.)

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Hej van (Hi friend in Svenska), this is just a gentle reminder to watch some of your words on the Ward Churchill talk page. I can understand that sometimes things can get heated, but it's best to refrain from saying anything that can be construed as rude. If you're trying to persuade an audience (in this case, it's the community) that you're correct, the lowest form of persuasion is resorting to name calling (or anything, I repeat, anything, that can be construed as name calling). Just remember to keep it friendly and discussion will go a lot smoother :-) If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are being discussed

User talk:HandThatFeeds#Closing ANI here - I am notifying you, without comment, that sanctions against you are being discussed with an administrator. Wikidemo (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Article probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Please accept this as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that you have violated the probation terms. Thank you. - Wikidemo (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?) $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 05:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Zizek lead description

OK then, no problem. Viator slovenicus (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Jill Biden changes

Please see Talk:Jill Biden. I strongly disagree with what you are doing. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Bob Dylan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR for Barack Obama

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Zizek "No longer in second marriage"

Hello, Do you have a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.17.161 (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama talk page

I see you've re-closed the discussion. Please be sure to attach the template {{discussionbottom}} at the end so it does not close the entire page. Also, given the contentiousness around the subject, should WB and CB react badly I suggest in advance that you take a step back and not get into any edit wars with them on the talk page. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just added {discussionbottom}. Sorry it took two edits to get it straight rather than just one. LotLE×talk 23:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you "did not think any comment you [LedRush] made there was impolite or unreasonable" (as you said on my talk page) about my comments on the Obama talk page, could you please say so at the Obama talk page. I feel like Wikidemon is bullying me around the page.LedRush (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already indicated as much to Wikidemon on his talk page. I'd rather avoid bringing the Obama talk page any further into "he said/she said" discussions (we've had far too much fo that there on a ongoing basis). I appreciate your frustration.... but as I recommended to Wikidemon, I think it's best to just go have a cup of soothing tea, and let the conflict be forgotten. LotLE×talk 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

ACORN

I've tried to add some information to the ACORN article, but you keep deleting it. Certainly the fact that ACORN and it's related ACORN entities are closely associated with Democrats and Barack Obama is notable, and I've provided verifiable sourcing. Also, while you continue to do a wholesale deletion of the content I added, this information is not included in the introduction and you've not explained why you don't think it should be included on the talk page. I tried to be a NPOV as possible, and you're welcome to make good faith edits, but simply deleting my contribution is inappropriate. There's an entire section on voting registration as well as issues with fraud so I also think mention of this belongs in the intro. And finally, how ACORN is funded is imoprtant. So if you don't like my edit please revise or add to it. But stop deleting it. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

I hope you don't feel that I unfairly singled you out with my recent comment on the ACORN page. I was actually posting most of that here to thank you for your cooperation, but decided the information and suggestions belonged on the article's discussion page. Let me know and I'll take my mention of you out, I was just trying to give you a nod. :) Thanks for your cooperation on the article. I'm pretty happy with it generally now as I've explained in more detail there... Party on. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I haven't seen any comment of yours on the talk page that offends me in any way. I don't mind being mentioned for actual edits or comments I have made (as long as there are no invectives attached ...not always even then :-)). In general, it's best to talk about the article content on the article talk rather than user talk, so I'll make any such content comments over there. All the best, LotLE×talk 20:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Consider this a heads up that you have biolated 3RR on the ACORN article ... again. CENSEI (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved with no violation

Just in case you missed it, I wanted to let you know that the malicious 3RR report on you was resolved, and CENSEI appears to have been warned. Feel free to remove this -- and the parent bad-faith warning -- at your leisure. --GoodDamon 16:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)