User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive24

Lolo

Thanks for fixing those refs - I had intended to expand them and got distracted. I do believe this article is in danger of coatracking, as evidenced, for example, by the title of the wholly unreliable source I replaced a few edits back. The "Mangunharjo" reference is almost exclusively found on very partisan, anti-Obama sites, and I fear this article will be used as just another way of getting lies into the public. But we'll see. AfD generally goes against my grain so I am waiting for now. Tvoz/talk 19:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking much better for your improvements. I still really don't understand your wish to delete it... lots of articles start out as stubs, and this is already a little better than that. Of course we should keep an eye on any attempts at coatracking, but that's true of most any article on WP... obviously, for some the danger is greater than others, but the general principle of following policy and guidelines will make Lolo Soetoro an article worth having. LotLE×talk 19:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...oh yeah, and I don't only like it because "Lolo" sounds kinda like "Lulu" :-). LotLE×talk 19:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit the Lulu connection is a plus. As for coatracking - yeah, many articles could be subject to it, but this one in particular. As I said, a source with the title "Barack Obama was a Muslim for 31 years" or whatever it was does not sound like it was added for the information it contained, but for getting that title in the article. And I still think that the allure here is to have "Obama" and "Muslim" closely associated in the text. But we'll see. Tvoz/talk 22:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bRd: Most Interested Person

Image:BRD1.svg Greetings. I have identified you as a "Most Interested Person" within the context of the WP:BRD process. The MIP identification arises from this edit that I entered to the Barack Obama article yesterday, and subsequent edits (in which you participated) that resulted in the restoration of the Barack Obama#Cultural and political image section I'd boldly removed. This places you and me at the middle of the BRD flow chart copied at the right side of this comment. Kindly advise how we might proceed through the rest of the cycle. I am painfully aware of the recent history of this article, but think that the BRD process may offer an effective strategy for improving article quality. At least with your help, I'd like to give it a try. Thanks! --HailFire (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always like that chart. However, the flow through it yesterday is something of an artifact. You probably noticed that an editor had reverted to a month-old version of the article just after (or maybe just before) your change. In trying to get that sorted out, your removal was lost in the process (I did the major revert to the 4 hour old "more-or-less accepted" version as a remedy); in this case, I think the restoration of your removed material is neither-here-nor-there, just an accident of timing.

That said, there were clearly mixed sentiments on the article talk page. Rather than boldly try again, I'd recommend something slightly less bold. Create a new section on the article talk, saying "I think the Culturual Image section is WP:UNDUE weight". Then go take a slightly more merciful scissors to the section to reduce it's size substantially (but intelligently). See how that flies; maybe simultaneously factor out some of the longer stuff to a child article. If a first pass seems to meet rough acceptance, maybe move slowly (over days or weeks) toward letting the WP:SUMMARY be just a sentence or two, with all the main material in the child. LotLE×talk 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I propose an alternate (if temporary) compromise? --HailFire (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, may you? What is it? LotLE×talk 19:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was at least some support building for my edit removing the whole section. My proposal is just that we undo the portion of yesterday's editing that effectively stopped the BRD process from running its natural course. So I'm asking you to restore my removal of that section, as the BRD process (and my own previously stated commitments) instruct that I not do so myself. In this way, an alternate MIP can be identified and I will be able to reengage the BRD process with that editor. --HailFire (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable removing the whole section myself. I don't necessarily oppose it, but I also don't enthusiastically endorse that specific action. LotLE×talk 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socks section

Just a note, you should probably make it clear who is blocked on your section and what for. 216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs) is currently not blocked, but their suspected puppetmaster was blocked indefinitely back in 2006. Improve2009 and their various socks are all indefinitely blocked. Fovean Author has only been blocked for 6 months. Andyvphil and WorkerBee74 were not blocked for being socks of Kossack4Truth, but Fovean got a short block for being one. Bsharvy is listed because Life.temp was actually a sock of Bsharvy. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unpretty toney

In terms of the tone on the Obama talk page, I just wanted to point out that this kind of comment really won't get us anywhere. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised. LotLE×talk 10:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd say that's fairly certain, but yours is more than a bit vague as far as comments go.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing WP a long time... (not necessarily less vague; but let's say I'm not wholly naive). LotLE×talk 10:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the thing I said first is still the thing I'm saying.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you want vinegar to repel flies rather than sugar to attract them. LotLE×talk 19:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prosesize

Actually, prosesize hits it spot on once you remove the [##] reference tags and section titles.[1] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more too, the tool doesn't count caption text and infoboxes as readable prose. Those should really be included, since they contribute to "reading volume." The ballpark is the same either way; I don't like going on with how-to on some specific userspace tool though (it's not part of the WP:SPACE policy, and not "official"... though whoever did it definitely did create a nice little bit of Javascript). LotLE×talk 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes fall under "list-like sections" and captions are generally ignored because they get included in the "Images are excluded" part of WP:SIZE, but yes, the two version are close enough that it doesn't really matter. At least not until one of the estimates is below 60k and the other is above. ;)--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do notice that sometimes people try to put extensive description in image captions? Yeah? Occasionally it is to "sneak in" content, but often it is merely misplacement. I don't think the Obama article is currently there, but as a general matter, long image descriptions really are words that readers need to deal with. For example, in some technical/scientific articles I've worked on, a detailed caption is genuinely required to make sense of a graph/chart/diagram; I think that is appropriate in those cases, but I also think it's part of what readers need to process to understand the flow. LotLE×talk 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K4T causing trouble

If you want a good laugh, check this out! Unbelievable. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your report to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74

Please use extreme care when cutting-and pasting. Your cut and paste from my report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 to yours at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74 made it appear that I had filed the RFCU report (since you left my signature under "Report submission by" and did not add yours). In addition, your report is likely to be rejected as malformed, since (among other concerns) it did not provide a reason code as listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser, so you may wish to re-work the report. Also, a RFCU is likely not needed here, since WP:RFCU states that "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Whenever possible, use other methods first," and a previous checkuser already turned up a possible link. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it appeared as a misattribution. I don't know much about RFCU's and SSP reports; in my limited experience, the former seem more likely to actually result in something happening (assuming there is, factually, abuse). SSP's seem to go largely ignored.... however, maybe I'm just crotchety about the hoards of socks that keep appearing at the Obama article, and it's slanting my impression. LotLE×talk 18:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Can a proposal be made by an opponent to gauge the sense of the community? — Justmeherenow ( ) 18:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

We're almost there, there are still some important issues that need to be resolved. Once there reserved, I'll merge in the edits. It needs to be done carefully so as not to lose citations in the process. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Would you consider weighing in with your experience and thoughtful opinions here: Talk:Etiquette#A gamesmanship of inoculation? Thanks. — Justmeherenow ( ) 18:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent link... I found what you actually meant in your edit history. Anyway, I was disappointed the other discussion seemed to be almost only among people who had participated in the discussion on the one merge proposal that prompted the more general question. I'll refrain from comment; hopefully more editors who address the topic in the abstract will come along (I think Kim Bruning kinda missed the point of your question, but whatever). LotLE×talk 18:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP viewer stats

The last stats I read were these. Here are the June numbers for Barack Obama. Here's John McCain. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! The top 5 administrative pages make sense. Barack Obama and John McCain near the top do also, since the US presidency is a big deal. As a general matter, I can see Sex and United States are of broad long-term interest. Why Canine reproduction is of greater interest than all the other things folks might care about perplexes me :-)... and Valentine's Day seems like it should only pop to the top around, y'know, February 14.

That'll be because the "top" stats are from February, and for some reason they haven't been updated since then. My wife said she thinks there may have been an Oprah "special" on puppy mills in February that had a follow-up last month. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I appreciate your recent comments, and've self-reverted with them in mind. Shem^(talk) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumptive nominee

I've returned the Presumptive nominee sections to the infoboxes of McCain and Obama as all the other candidates and nominees (Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, etc.) have the section in their infoboxes. If you disagree with the section, please discuss your views at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#Nominee/Candidate section. --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Different pages, different contentions

Yes, I've wondered why the difference too. Partly it's because a lot of McCain stuff is old news from the pre-Wikipedia era, while for example the Jeremiah Wright stuff has been happening now. (Same holds true for Obama compared to Hillary. Imagine what articles like Whitewater controversy or Lewinsky scandal would be like if they happened in the Wikipedia era!) Partly it may be because few people think McCain can win. As for quality of articles, John McCain is an 'executive summary'; I'm not crazy about it myself. If you want the real deal, read the biographical subarticle sequence starting with Early life and military career of John McCain (currently up for FAC! vote early and vote often :-) and go forward from there. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please remove

Please remove my name from the talk page immediately or I will seek help in finding somebody who will.

That is inexcusable.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the history, in any case. Chill, man! It may not be all that clever levity, but there's hardly anything ill-meaning about mentioning your first name... it took all 10 seconds to find it using Google and your own user page... there no secret here (I confess I was piqued whether you really make as much for writing as I do). Even so, I thought it would be properly discrete not to give your last name in full, in case anyone didn't want to spend the 10 seconds searching. If you really imagine your first name matters to someone, somewhere, in some respect, feel free to edit my comment to your heart's content. LotLE×talk 02:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, take a valium or something. This post is... well, more than a little crazy. If you really want to make yourself untraceable, use an anonymous name (not one so obviously connected to your birth name), and don't put specifically identifying information on your user page. Those big, bad intertubes aren't exactly the place for private info. LotLE×talk 02:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

I am well aware of what is and isn't available about me online. Whether you believe my wiki-posts, or I, am a "little crazy" is beyond the scope of any wiki discussion I've ever been involved in. As you’re aware I am sure, personal attacks are not encouraged. I don’t subscribe to the notion that either I or any posts I’ve made in the last day are crazy. Did you also recommend I take drugs? Are you a psychiatrist too?

My main point, not stated clearly enough (or concisely) to a Google-using editor--was that both your job, and my own, are irrelevant to our discussion. You're a writer? Well me too, and so what? Don't you suspect a high percentage of wiki addicts are writers of some sort? I am more writer than editor, despite my title, which is Editorial Director not editor. There is a difference. Whether or not you think I am any good at writing or editing is not a concern to me.

Can people easily find additional info on me? Sure.

Is it at all appropriate to bring up personal information--or even the fact that you're a writer--in a Wiki-discussion/debate?

Is it ever appropriate to Google someone, find their name (easy to do or not) and use it in a wiki-discussion?

I’d recommend an apology, but only you can choose the level of civility that you live by.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to accept your apology. LotLE×talk 17:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is often hard to admit when we're wrong. When you crossed the line of doing personal research on me and brazenly added it to a talk page--it seemed to me that you had obviously crossed that line. It appears you don't see or will not accept this. I will seek additional assistance from Wiki-admins. This is just not acceptable to me. I enjoy healthy debate, I do not enjoy this. --Utahredrock (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sad thing is that I've supported you in some editing questions (mostly the notability of the Soetoro article). When you had—and now continue even more absurdly—this childish and incomprehensible tantrum, it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. I don't think I could ever really take any position in an editing dispute strongly in your favor, because I would never know what weird irrational blow-up you might break out in. I suppose I'd just have to walk away from any such dispute rather than support you (obviously, I'm not going to take a false position on that basis, but I might well just not want to get involved because of your erratic behavior).

I haven't the foggiest idea what you managed to get into your head about some perceived slight or injury. Whatever it is, it's mistaken (and annoying). You should stop doing it, and find a way to get your mind back in a rational place. On your first name which you imagine to be so private: I really do recommend you ask an admin to clear your user page history and choose a different username if you want to edit without a direct and obvious connection to the name you use elsewhere. You can't put up a flashing neon sign, and object when people read the words it displays.

FWIW, I have a really good spam filtering heuristic I use. Well, actually GMail does a great job as a first pass, but at the boundaries. If a message has the word "urgent" in its subject line, it's spam. Nothing that was really urgent would use that word in the title. I little tip between writers. LotLE×talk 17:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outing editors

User:Utahredrock has complained that you revealed his identity on talk:John McCain, and based on what I've seen, it appears that you did. Doing so is inappropriate, so please don't do it again. If I'm only getting part of the story, please respond here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, actually, respond here instead. Sorry. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's not story on any side of it. I made a light comment that I was paid as a writer (while discussing stylistic matters for an article). Utahredrock, in a tone of levity (I think), suggested he made more doing the same thing... that piqued my my curiosity, so I spent a few seconds checking his user page to see if it was true. Continuing the joke, I suggested he might by using his first name (no, not his "identity"). LotLE×talk 02:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed a tone of levity on what I felt was an inappropriate and irrelevant point. Then you crossed the line to personal research on me and what ever good-heartedness I felt was gone.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule is that you shouldn't make any reference to other editors' personal details unless they have explicitly revealed those details about themselves on-Wiki. It's probably a good idea to abide by that rule. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]