User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive03

Gratuitous VfDs by Jtdirl

Unfortunately, User:Jtdirl is intent on sabotaging any content on Wikipedia that doesn't promote a position he has on addressing the pope with a strongly pro-Catholic POV (including vandalism, WP:Point, personal attacks, VfD abuse, etc). This article indeed draws on a discussion that grew out of a WP survey, but should not and need not refer to WP Manual of Style issues, but rather address the outside world's style guidelines. Even though Jtdirl put this malicious VfD minutes after the page creation, most of the discussion-specific content is removed, and editors can help by removing any remaining WP-internal content.

I would appreciate it if editors who watch my talk page go cast a "keep" vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics to stamp out this nonsense. Also, please help improve the page itself that I started this evening. Oh... he also VfD'd the existing page Honorifics. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:12, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I would back a RfC on Jtdirl. Whig 06:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that. But rather than escalate to that immediately, I placed a Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Hopefully some editors he knows will appeal to him to act in a more reasonable manner. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:54, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I added a comment to your alert. Whig 07:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a position on addressing the Pope, let alone a strongly pro-Catholic POV. I have a stand on using styles. And I don't care whether that style is for the Dalai Lama, the Pope, the Prince of Wales or anyone else. You have been pushing your personal agenda onto articles for weeks, as though your personal hatred of the Pope should in some way shape wikipedia policy.

And BTW, for the record, I happen to think the current pope is a bigoted, homophobic son-of-a-bitch. And I didn't think much of his precedessor. But standing by principles of NPOV does not make one "strongly pro-Catholic", whereas you have made it quite clear that you have an issue not with styles but with calling the Pope "His Holiness. That is your right to hold that view. But it isn't your right to expect that NPOV entries reflect your POV. And my argument would be exactly the same if the flashpoint on styles occurred on the page of the Dalai Lama, the Queen of the United Kingdom or anywhere else. That it is the Pope is irrelevant to me. You however have made it clear that is an issue to you.

While I indeed do not much like the current pope, nor his predecessor, this comment is the first time I have said so anywhere on Wikipedia (or indeed, in writing). My opinion in the MoS survey is about the use of styles, which I find anathema to NPOV. The Dalai Lama, of course, was never addressed on WP with a style (except briefly, as vandalized by pro-pope editors). I also don't want the House of Windsor addressed with styles on WP, nor any other royalty (overwhelmingly they are not so addressed on WP, of course, just the English ones). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

As to the ridiculous style guidelines page, it is 100% irrelevant to wikipedia, just an article on the fonts used by various newspapers, or on the number of pages individual pages, would be. The only encyclopaedic issue is whether they exist and if so what they are. At best what category of people use them warrants a line or two at most in the actual article on the topic. The article you created has nothing to do with the issue on an encyclopaediac article, and everything to do with your POV agenda on them. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 07:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious VfDs added before the page has any chance to shape up are extreme exhibitions of bad faith. I quite agree that the page on Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics could use a little cleaning up, some better intro, and removal of the threads connecting it to an earlier discussion page. But it's only a couple hours old; and was newer than that when you started your bad faith campaign. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:41, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

NPOV digression

Completely irrelevant note: Exactly how an Irish leftist can be so sycophantic to the House of Windsor utterly baffles me; all the more so one who apparently knows Irish history (but I do like the "asses of evil" picture). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

How "sycophantic"? When I write something I want it to be factually correct. I don't know decide their names, titles, styles etc. They are there, so I have to write about them, just as George Bush and (as you may have guessed from the image) however much I may hate him and think him a prize asshole - but then I know Bill and Hillary so I would say that, I suppose! - I've got to put in stuff that is accurate and NPOV. There have been some articles I have written where I literally been writing NPOV stuff through gritted teeth, including having to write neutrally about people who blew the brains out of a friend of mine, having to write neutrally about clerical sex abuse when people very close to me were abused by priests. I go through phases in terms of writing here. I can spend weeks doing related topics because I stumbled into one and then began adding connected topics. I did weeks doing a host of Irish topics once. I think at the time I single-handedly doubled the number of Irish articles here. I did a lot of stuff on international politics, on governmental systems, on technical terminology, etc. In recent times I began to do a lot of Catholic stuff (but, believe me, that does not mean that I am pro-Catholic!) simply because I have access to information and I want to use it. Next week however I could be writing about marxism in Africa or Islam or mediaeval sexual behaviour or anything.

One thing I have found funny on wikipedia is being accused, almost simultaneously, of being on opposite sides of the spectrum. In the one day I was accused by both Australian republicans and Australian monarchists of being on the other's side, because I NPOVed an article. I was told once I was a 'pro-British lackey' and an 'IRA stooge' within one hour once for some edits by two rival contributors. In reverting POV stuff about Bush I was accused of being pro-Bush and anti-Kerry, etc. Weeks later I was being accused of being pro-Kerry and anti-Bush.

My bottom line is simple - accuracy. I want to see the terminology correct, the language accurate, the context factual, etc. I may think the terminology stupid, but if it is the correct terminology then IMHO it has to be used. If someone is styled 'Oh great soggy underpants' then I would support using it, no matter how much privately I may think it a ridiculous thing to say. So don't presume because I have been writing about royals and Catholic topics that I am either a monarchist or pro-Catholic. Next week I could be writing about something completely different. FearÉIREANN

^(talk) 08:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's even stranger to me that Jtdirl want to introduce POV into articles where he does not himself hold that POV. Well, maybe I can understand it as a misunderstanding of authority and traditions, but it's still wrong. Calling the pope "His Holiness" is pro-Catholic (and I never said anything other than this on WP; specifically not that any proponents were themselves Catholic). And calling the House of Windsor "Her Majesty" and the like is pro-Monarchy and pro-English (or just pro-Windsor). And calling the Dalai Lama "His Holiness" is pro-Tibbetan Budhism. And calling Prince Abdullah "His Majesty" is pro-Saudi. And likewise for all the other styles.

Yeah, it's true that I don't hold any of those POV's myself. But my opposition isn't individualistically anti-Catholic, anti-Windsor, anti-Buddhist, anti-Saudi. What I want is Neutral Point of View (not pro-anything). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:54, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 08:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

QEII

You know I'm all for getting rid of styles but there's no immediate hurry. Leave people some time to think about what recent events mean. People are generally more likely to change their mind if you let them do it in their own time. So, please, in the interest of keeping everybody's wikistress down, slow down a bit. Zocky 10:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll pursue it at a more leisurely pace. Thanks Zocky. Btw. If you want to vote on Jtdirl's gratuitious and spiteful VfDs, that would be good. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:05, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Mention & use

Yes — you wouldn't think that it took a doctorate (I think that I'd mastered the distinction by the end of the first term of my first degree). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A way forward

We have previously discussed, and others have advised you, to calm down on the prefixed style issue. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have happened. WP is a broad church, and we, quite rightly in my opinion, encourage edits from editors with a wide range of backgrounds and views. This, however, means that we need to be tolerant of others - and in particular, tolerant of those we disagree with most. I would very much welcome it if you would allow the style-wars issue to die down. I have no problem with you raising the initial points, or with you asking the initial questions. But we have now had a wide-ranging discussion, and it is clear no consensus exists. Please do not force the issue. Let others decide how to take it forward.

Let me, even at this stage, offer a potential solution. If you and Whig agree to step aside from the style wars (thereby allowing other editors to determine what happens), so will I. I appreciate you are unable to speak for Whig, but I look forward to your acceptance in principle as a good way to move forward, and to allow both of us to make more constructive edits elsewhere.

In the meantime, I am asking for outside comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. This is just a request to ask you to leave off the style wars for now (and, as noted above, I am willing to do the same myself). Finally, may I express my sincere hope that you take this note in the manner in which it is intended: an attempt to put the wars behind us so we may both continue to edit WP in a constructive manner. Kind regards, jguk 20:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu. There is a separate section on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for your response. I have removed your response there. I have also reverted your changes to my comments. The general rules are: you are not allowed to edit my comments, I am not allowed to edit your response. You may wish to amend your response to address the point I have removed from my comments.

Oh, please leave in the part that I removed the negative comment about whatshisname after three minutes. I had "clickers remorse" right after I did it. Even though the user was a real PITA, and was banned in an RfC (that I did not create, nor even really follow), I realized it was immature to add a negative (albeit accurate) characterization to a user page right after I did so. I know you have an agenda to push, but it's just deceptive to hide the fact I reverted that comment immediately. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:43, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I would add that my intention on making the RfC is to bring this to an amicable and swift conclusion. I was hoping that you might agree with that aim. Kind regards, jguk 20:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did endorse your RfC, didn't I :-). Seems amicable to me.

Btw., I would love it if you would stop violating WP:Point (even though that is not policy) just to push style usage (but only for the figures you like). I will do my best to avoid adding or subtracting styles; but I'm afraid it still ticks me off to see you contentiously adding and subtracting them to fit your whims. Notice how nicey-nice I was on the Tony Blair page? Even though the style seems grotesquely POV to me, I didn't touch it, but instead made a comment on the talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:39, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I have offered, and will offer again as a way forward, that I will leave the style issue alone as long as both yourself and Whig do so (and I know you can't speak for Whig - but you can speak for yourself). We can then both go constructively editing WP in other directions. Please remember, I am looking for resolution here - something that ends this dispute and allows WP to grow (hopefully by lots of good edits by both of us). Kind regards, jguk 20:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, again

You have been blocked for 48 hours due to a second violation of the three revert rule on Pope Benedict XVI. In addition, in one of your reverts, you intentionally disguised a link to your user page in the introductorary paragraph of the article, which can be considered a form of vandalism. Finally, all of your reverts were marked as minor edits, in an attempt to hide them from other editors. Gentgeen 23:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing RFC on this user. If he has violated 3RR, he should obviosly be blocked from editing, but it seems unfair that he's blocked from participating in his RFC. Could he be unblocked on the condition that he doesn't edit anything but his RFC and pages in his userspace for the remainder of the 48 hours? Zocky 00:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the current RfC, I have unblocked you (well, technically blocked you again, for a shorter period of time.) You should be able to edit again in about 10 minutes. Please behave yourself, or I'll have to do this again, and the status of an RfC won't matter. Gentgeen 00:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take that "behave yourself" means the above conditions, ie. own rfc and own userspace only? Zocky 00:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to watch his contributions like a hawk. However, I do reserve the right to re-introduce the block if he begins reverting pages again, especially in the next 24 hours. Gentgeen 01:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to be good*. I'll leave off anything related to that whole style nonsense for a couple days, at the least. But I may want to edit some pages entirely unrelated to the matter, with that silliness behind me (but not necessarily only my own userspace).

*However, I am confident I did not actually violate 3RR—not really for Gentgeen, but for others who watch my page. I made three revisions to B16 in 24 hours (but not four). And while two of those were putting back the "styled as" form, the last one was simply linkifying the prefixed Holiness. Yeah, I need, psychologically, to stop worrying about the grating style usage—and two revisions is indeed too many also. But on the actual rule, I was technically compliant.

You were saying? Gentgeen 03:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah... those aren't the same change. The first one is my weird mistake of pasting in code from somewhere else. But someone else fixed that. The others use somewhat different wording, hoping to find something that wouldn't be rejected by the prefix-style folks. However, you're right: I flipped the number in my head and thought there was 25 hours, not 23 hours between the first and last thing you list I don't really know how the 3RR reporting happens, but I definitely see several people who restored the prefixed style more than 3 times in 24 hours—I assume the report against me came from Jguk or Jtdirl, who are both carrying on rather dishonest vendettas on WP (spurious RfCs and VfDs, not only against me, but a couple other folks too). If it was one of them, it looks like abuse of 3RR also.

In any case, a sincere mea culpa. And edit war is stupid and destructive, and not good for my brain. And even two reverts by me is too many. I will just live with the "wrong version" for the time being—at least a few weeks. And, in fact, just leave the B16 page unwatched (and the rest of the prefix-style silliness). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:55, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

styles and stuff

Lulu, would you find my idea on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ratification acceptable? You probably shouldn't comment there, so here would probably be appropriate. Cheers. Zocky 02:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I removed that page from my watch list though (but I saw your comment before pressing "unwatch")... good behavior, lower blood pressure, all that. ☺.

I think that me saying it was a good idea over there would convince a half-dozen style enthusiasts to oppose it vigorously. Something about noses, spite and faces. So I'll just wish you good luck here. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:16, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Hard to tell, but it could've got you blocked again, so there. Zocky 02:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I hope not. ☹ I am not going to test the hypothesis, but I hardly see how adding a new comment could be a "reversion."