User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive07

ROHA vandal

I'm watching him/her as well. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and heads-up on those fullstops he/she seems to put in the article simply so he/she can make a comment or personal attack in the edit summary. Akamad 08:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I blocked him for 3RR violation. And what does ROHA mean? Zoe 09:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what the initials/acronym means. The matter did kinda pique my curiosity, but the anon did not answer several requests for that info. I took to calling him/her "the editor who says ROHA", kinda in reference to the Monty Python "Knights who say Nee". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:40, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Hormones

"Our anon fetal hormone editor still overstates the number and consistency of human studies." All the humans studes thus far have found consistently the same results. How is this less consistently? Do you know fo a study that found differing results? 70.57.82.114 22:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll find some citations for the talk page (soon, probably not today). But the studies done are quite limited, and science has a rather consistent "bias against the null hypothesis" (i.e. if ten studies were found lacking correlations, they would go unpublished... in any field, not about this hypothesis specifically). I only start feeling a hypothesis has real strength when quite a bit more study has been done, and quite a bit higher confidence intervals have been shown than have so far with human fetal hormone links to sexual orientation.

Barbara Nitke VFD

Many thanks for the compliment on the Barbara Nitke VFD page. People who write "fringe" stuff need all the support we can get ---Outlander 13:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Thanks for that, Lulu, I am indeed commited to the project and stopping it from being vandalised. I dont know about Mongo, I think he is a good user, but this whole Vfd debacle has brought out the worst in many of us. I am keen to find out who owns all those socks, but frankly, it could be anyone. But thanks for keeping a cool head through this whole mess. Cheers! Banes 08:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

USAian

USAian is not the adjective for things related to the United States.

It's not the only adjective used for things related to the USA. See, e.g. USAian. But it is certainly a common word with longstanding usage. Oh well, I guess you are just one of those odd folks who think any word less familiar to you is "unpure" or something. Certainly the other adjectival phrases you suggest are reasonable too (except "American" in the prior context, since pointedly, Miller does not govern Canada, Venezuala, Chile, and so on). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:47, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Nothing governs Canada, Venezuala, Chile, and so on. These are all independent countries. American in the sense you mean refers to America (or the Americas) together or as a whole. The individual countries of the Americas each have their own natural adjective forms, excpet for the United States (see your own examples above). In the United States, American is the adjective form. While this may seem inaccurate and chauvenistic, there is hardly anything anyone can do to change it: it is deeply imbedded into the culture and language of the United States. -Acjelen 18:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This is just getting silly. Yes, in the United States (and elsewhere) American is an adjective form for "pertaining to the USA". Even the most widely used such adjective. In some contexts that adjective is clear enough, there's only one "American invasion of Iraq" (well, only one latest one :-(); Venezuela didn't do that. But in terms of citing a legal case that many readers will not know, USAian is the best adjective to use, if you use a single word (using a short adjectival phrase is fine though).

You may prefer USAian, but I don't. I find it ridiculous.

No shit about different countries having their own laws and courts! That's why I wrote the same d**n thing. I would have thought a librarian would have encountered enough logic to know that "None of X, Y, and Z are Foos" does not logically (nor conversationally) imply "The is a non-Foo, Bar, such that X, Y and Z are Bars." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:23, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

I've always wondered if it is a fault of formal logic that laypersons have difficulty reading it. When I spoke of nothing governing Canada, Venezuala, and Chile, I meant to imply that there could hardly be confusion in phrases such as "American foreign policy" since America in the broad sense does not have a unitary foreign policy. The same can be said of "American film industry", "American diet", and "American government". "American presidents" is more difficult (as both Jefferson Davis and Hugo Chavez would be included). -Acjelen 18:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Either American or U.S. should be used, as in "American foriegn policy" or "U.S. foreign policy". In the case of the Miller test, however, I would use "the U.S. government's Miller test" or "the U.S. courts' Miller test". Are there, however, other such Miller tests that a qualification would be necessary? -Acjelen 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Understanding vandalism

I only recently began to look at this dispute, but here are some of my thoughts so far:

• User:Monicasdude is a stubborn editor who is re-inserting his preferred edits with flagrant disregard to community consensus, and in possible contravention of WP:3RR. Nevertheless, his edits are a good-faith attempt to do what he feels is improving the encyclopedic merit of Bob Dylan.
• User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's comments about User:Monicasdude being a "vandal" severely misunderstand both the definition of vandalism and are needlessly and unproductively escalating the dispute with oppositional attitude. Similarly, his edits, albeit a bit confused, are in good faith.

As I see it, the resolution process will follow these steps, hopefully not to the end:

1. Private mediation between me, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, User:Monicasdude, and any other involved parties who want to participate. This would preferably take place on IRC or some other sort of private chat.
2. If that fails, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and another involved editor should file a RfC against User:Monicasdude.
3. If the RfC attracts community consensus in one direction, and the disputed behavior continues, then it will have to go to arbitration.

I really don't want to have to go to step 2 or 3, since they are quite ugly. Therefore I am requesting that you accept my offer to mediate this dispute and tell me when you would be able to discuss it. You can find my contact information here.

I appreciate you cooperation. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to aid in resolving this, Ryan. Feel free to email me privately if you wish (info on my user page), as well as use this user talk page. I believe that Apple's iChat supports several IRC formats, but I am not much accustomed to using them.

An initial concern is that this is not just about my editorship on the page. It appears that months before I first edited the page, JDG and others eventually just gave up on trying to edit, because of the same behavior by Monicasdude. And in truth, I am not so involved in the topic as to wish to "shephard" it forever. I'd like future editors to be able to participate too, w/o Monicasdude demanding exclusive say on all edits. It's the forest-and-trees thing. I don't care so much about discussing some particular wording of some particular fact (and I'm sure Monicasdude can provide thousands of words of not-really-but-nominally-relevant trivia on such), as about letting the page function in a cooperative manner, in the wiki way. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:52, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Hello Lulu and Ryan. I'm willing to participate in any effort to settle this without going the RfC route. I generally stay away from IRC because I could find no Windows client that didn't open the floodgates to malware hell, but I'll set myself up for it if you can nail down Mdude's participation. Thanks. JDG 17:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Orders

You seem to enjoy giving people orders. Here is the apology for altering my subject heading from the person who changed it...gives me ample right to remove the warning and shows you have no right dictating. Taken from my talk page: "It was uncivil of me to change the header of this talk page, and I apologise. brenneman(t)(c) 12:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)". You really need to do a deep examination of your behavior. Wrongful accusations of 3RR, calling people trolls with no evidence and making suggestions of vandalism when it involves content dispute is not the way to build a good reputation here. I won't bother Rfc-ing you on all of this because I think they are a waste of time. Don't act so threatened. --MONGO 00:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I do understand Wikiquette, if that's what you mean. I did not change your subject header on the talk page; but I think doing that is kinda borderline in terms of wikiquette. One definitely should not remove someone's actual comments—as you have done numerous times to various people—but changing a header is a bit more context dependent. The headers are organizational and navigational, and as such are more of collaborative content. Obviously, if a change really undercuts the intention of the original header, that's bad manners... brenneman's change ambivalent enough that I did not myself revert it, but also such that I did not object to your reversion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:41, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Proposal for RfC

This thread has mostly evolved into a conversation between two editors other than me. I move it to a subpage here. They are welcome to use that, but it might make sense to move it to a different location, like the RfC talk page.

User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/RfC/Monicasdude

Don't hang out with the trolls

User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Comstockians

Re: "Outside comment"

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Monicasdude (thread moved there).

CfD

Lulu, I still can't find Category:LGBT philosophers on the deletion page. The page link goes to the page but not specifically to an entry for that, and when I do a search, nothing comes up. Sorry if I'm just missing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize. I know I did this wrong, and created some Wikispace cruft. I was trying to follow the VfD procedures rather than CfD, and didn't even really know how to do the wrong thing either. I just got back home, and I'll try to follow the CfD procedures I finally located. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:38, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

No worries. I dread putting things up for deletion because I always get it wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've figured it out, do you think I should do one on the Secular Jewish philosophers also? It seems almost as silly for a category, but has more names listed, so there might be more objection to deleting it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:52, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

more hormones

hi lulu :)

i would be delighted if u would look at the talk page of the page you created, Fetal hormones and sexual orientation. ntennis 06:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job of cleaning up the page. It still needs work, but it went from the possibility of a WP page to an actual article! FWIW, I actually have little sympathy with the fetal hormone hypothesis myself. I mainly created the page (using language suggested by a proponent of the hypothesis) to get the stuff out of the already-too-long Homosexuality article (but still available to readers who wish to pursue it in more depth). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:30, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Oh, if you are biologically inclined, maybe you'd feel like making a pass over the article I did write myself at Norms of reaction. I think that scientific topic is actually key to seeing what is wrong with biological reductionist explanations (not just of sexual orientation, but of many other things too). When/if I feel like my Norms of reaction is in "presentable" shape, I'll probably add it to some more "See also" links in sexuality-related pages. You can see the point I had in writing a much earlier basis of the article in the article talk page (the old essay there would definitely violate WP:NOR; but then, it wasn't written for WP at the time... heck, WP didn't exist in 1993 or so). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:35, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. i'll have a look at the norms article. In the meantime I want to make some fairly major changes to the hormones article and I'd rather not do it without discussion. Can you take a look at the talk page? I'm starting to think the whole thing can be merged into Biology and sexual orientation. Cheers. :) ntennis 06:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Victoria addition in Homosexuality

Hi! While I generally agree with most of the edits you make to the Homosexuality article, I can't see why you keep deleting the Victoria thing. It's an informative addition, and I don't see anything wrong with it. I'd like you to explain yourself, and by the way, if you revert it again, I'm afraid you'll violate WP:3RR. - ulayiti (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I won't violate 3RR, I reverted it twice, and asked for it to be justied in Talk page! The story about QV is a common urban legend, but is unlikely to be true. If it is to be included, it needs to be sourced; and it also needs to be written much better (the language is awkward and overlong). Please use the Talk:Homosexuality page to work out a version (if any) to be included in the main article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:49, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

OK, my bad. Your most recent edit satisfies me greatly. :) - ulayiti (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:LGBT philosophers

I go back and forth on this one. But here are my basic reasons: 1. I'm currently a little peeved at the fundies who are going around bashing any non-negative LGBT reference.

Yeah, you may have seen some homophobes trying to insert gratuitious stuff in Homosexuality, which I've been doing some work on. I can certainly sympathize with "peeved".

Yeah, I've considered taking homosexuality off my watchlist. Its about to make me lose it.

2. The category, regardless of its real faults, just isn't POV. Some of the articles shouldn't be there, granted, and the inclusion of some of the articles in the category is POV, but the category itsself, unlike, say, Category: Assholes who think promoting "reparative therapy" is NPOV, is not. There just are some philosophers who have identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or probably trans, and their identification is fact, not a given person's take on the issue. That said, only self-identifying LGBT people should be in the cat. Likewise, used properly, it doesn't violate WP:V

Well, maybe not POV exactly. But probably WP:NOR, and certainly WP:V. It's just way too fuzzy what "counts", and also what counts as "evidence." If it really were something like "Philosophers self-identified as LGBT" it wouldn't be quite as bad (though I'd still oppose it). OTOH, I'd certainly love a category like Category:Philosophers who write about sexuality (or however the naming schema would do that).

It doesn't violate WP:V when the person publicly self-identifies as whatever, and it absolutely doesn't violate WP:NOR in that situation either. Its not original research to say that Foucault was gay, and its pretty verifiable.

Foucault sure. But not really Wittgenstein. Or Bacon. Or Algarotti. Or de Beauvoir. Or about 2/3 of the others at List of famous gay, lesbian, or bisexual academics (I know that's different from the category; but someone might think to categorize all of them). But probably a few dozen major philosophers who aren't on the list or category were, but it's just not in the gossip channel (or hundreds of minor ones). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:36, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Other than de Beauvoir I totally agree with you here. Most of the members of the category shouldn't be there. There's nothing really wrong with the category itself, though.

3. It could be useful for research purposes. I'm a big proponent of letting information flow in any way that is especially useful (while watching for POV whatnots).

4. It amounts to more than gossip if you think that sex is important.

5. The moons and the tides. -Seth Mahoney 01:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think sex is important. But just adding names to LGBT people lists is a facile cheat. For queer-friendly folks it's an empty reassurance that "those famous people are queer too"; for homophobes its an equally empty way to condemn people they don't like. But none of it is encyclopedic if it doesn't really pertain to the reasons for noteriety pertaining to a person. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:38, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

You're right, it is a cheat if its not done carefully. It can still be encyclopedic if it doesn't pertain to the person's notability, but I'd argue against its use in that case. The category can be used (and should be used), in such a way as to avoid all your concerns here. Right now, its being used very badly, unfortunately, but that doesn't show any inherent problem with the category.

you're welcome

...and you're correct in your assessment (much better to bore them than to taunt them, tempting though it is!) By the way, interesting user page! There's yet another version of that quote -- "man will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" -- Ed Abbey, but he hilariously attributed it to Louisa May Alcott, and got himself fired from his editor job for it. Hey, keep up the good work here! Antandrus (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy of sexuality

Nice addition! Thanks. -Seth Mahoney 22:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Glad you like it. But why Voltaire? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:59, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

The Philosophical Dictionary mostly. He makes some interesting comments about love = sex, which was pretty daring for the time (pretty daring now, too) and devoted several articles to issues regarding sexuality. He also had some odd commentary in the other articles regarding sexual issues, notably a bizarre comment in an article about the Ancient Greeks (I think - maybe Romans, its been a long time) about how, even if someone were to provide him evidence that they engaged in same-sex sex he wouldn't believe it. As with most of his writing, its often hard to tell what he's really trying to argue for and when he's being sarchastic or using satire, but he's got some interesting stuff there.

I was tempted to add Kant, too, since he devoted entire passages to arguments regarding sex and sexuality and what constitutes appropriate sex and why, and what doesn't. His writing is especially interesting to me since much of what he wrote about sexuality either directly or indirectly violates his own categorical imperative. I'll probably spend the next few days peeking through my book collection and seeing who else I can add.

-Seth Mahoney 23:05, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I thought of Kant too, but... well, I didn't add him, but certainly won't quibble if you or another editor does. Likewise Voltaire. This category seems like it's much less significant if we moderately over-include names, somehow, than the LGBT one does. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:45, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Membership shenanigans

Hello Lulu of Lotus-Eaters, Im Moe Epsilon. I am here to ask why am I a member of this list, WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Membership shenanigans. — Moe ε 23:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not include (nor exclude) you on any list. I just cleaned up that talk page a little by moving a thread about the "true members" to a subpage. But the comments themselves I did not modify at all (nor write in the first place). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:47, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Comstockians

The comstockians appear to be drumming up support for an RFAr against the two of us. I apologize if my conduct at any point caused or will cause you any wikistress. You are a model wikipedian, and I hope that any failings on my part are not reflected on you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:3RR

You have been blocked for twenty-four hours in response of a three-revert rule violation on the article Homosexuality. If you have any questions, please reply on this talk page, or email me. Please refrain from edit warring when you return. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

---

This block is flatly in error, and I am almost certain it reflects a prior animosity (about an unrelated issue) by administrator User:Bratsche. A look at the edit history of Homosexuality will plainly show that I have not reverted four times on the same issue (nor on any issue, during any 24 hour period). I have, however, made more than four edits on a variety of different sections and wordings. This isn't even close to a 3RR violation!

Moreover, in mischaracterizing it, Bratsche wrote to another admin who questioned it:

I just got your message, and went over the case again. While it is true that the abovementioned user has only edited Homosexuality three times in the last twenty-four hours, he (yes, a guy :-) did revert the article about six or seven times on September 1. That day is when both users committed the 3RR violation. I don't think the addition or removal of the certain paragraph counts as vandalism, as it was sourced. Thanks for the heads-up, though; never fail to critcize or correct me! Regards, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of sloppiness that bothers me about this errant admin. He claimed further in email to me that:

There were more than four reversion on the article. Your reversion concerned the removal of the two paragraphs, one about the English law, and the other about the removal of homosexuality from the list of diseases. (Bratsche)

This is exactly wrong. The issue about English law was completely unrelated to the issue about the APA. The two changes were made by different users (both anons). But on the English law issue, several editors cooperated on the talk page, and a satisfactory compromise language was reached (I made several changes, but only one of them was a simple revert of the paragraph). I may have been a little brusque in dismissing the apocrypha about Queen Victoria (there's an old urban legend that an anon user added), but changing that has nothing whatsoever to do with changing the APA language. The only connection is that I happened to be actively editing that page—with most changes unrelated to either thing—during September 1, and Bratsche just conflates all my unrelated edits, to completely different sections, as if they were reversions of the same paragraph.

In fact, I reported User:66.216.226.34 for 3RR violation around a phrase about the APA/DSM in that article. A number of users other than me reverted this anon editor on the same issue (I did so a couple times, but not four). Moreover, as soon as someone else first restored the prior version from the anon editors POV change, I requested on the anon's talk page, in the edit comments, and at Talk:Homosexuality that the editor take the suggested change to the talk page. S/he refused, until after I reported the 3RR; when the anon finally brought it to the talk page, the clear consensus of editors was that the new language was not appropriate. Several users tried to address a core element of the anon editors proposed change, and I did help tweak that... but not by reversion in any case, only by moving forward.

It just bugs me that I get blocked for doing everything right, in this case:

1. follow the lead of other editors who are well-respected on that page;
2. ask repeatedly for discussion of a change;
3. bring it to the talk page, and find clear consensus around wording;
4. don't even report the abusing anon editor until seven reverts, out of assuming good faith (despite the fact his *entire* edit history is putting inappropriate material in this and one or two other articles)
5. .... and then get blocked by an admin who has a grudge against me for an unrelated matter.

Moreover, at least one of my changes was just an edit-conflict thing, since the servers were extra slow and buggy that day (I get an error message after I press "save" sometimes; I get this, and I'm not sure if the change "took" when the servers are burdened). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:35, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Good editing in action

I'd have to concur with Slim. Note that you marked this edit as reverting vandalism, but it clearly isn't, so it would count towards the 3RR. Edits such as this one that are about a single word, while somewhat trivial, can be considered reverts. I'd suggest you talk it out with Bratsche after your block expires. Radiant_>|< 07:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

The edit you mention about a single word wasn't a revert though. In my collaboration with Tznkai we were clearly on the same general page, and not in an edit-conflict. He had proposed:

In a controversial 1973 decision, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, asserting that...

I changed that a bit to:

In a then contested 1973 decision, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and no longer list...

Three changes I made, the tense, the adjective about the decision, and the link to the consequent. In reply, Tznkai tried:

In a controversial 1973 decision, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, thus no longer list...

That is, he put back his adjective (which I don't entirely like), and genuinely improved the connector. I endorsed the connector, agreed to compromise on the adjective, and put back the tense modifier that I think he really only took out accidentally:

In a then controversial 1973 decision, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, thus no longer listing...

No two of these sentences are quite the same, and each tweak is incrementally better. In other words, exactly how cooperation is supposed to work. No edit conflict, no reversion. Moreover, it appears Tznkai is happy with the result also (at least he hasn't changed it further, or complained about it on the talk page). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:43, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Admins weigh in

Lulu, I'm concerned that you don't see this was a 3RR violation. You deleted the Queen Victoria and the DSM passage many times in just a few hours. I left the times of the DSM deletions for you elsewhere on this page. From memory, you deleted it six times in around nine hours. These are called complex, partial reverts, which means reverting to part of a prior version (by deletion or addition), while making new edits at the same time. This counts as a revert. Even if it's just one word you keep adding or deleting while making other edits, it's still a revert. I thought I should let you because if you're not aware of this, you may do it again inadvertently. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for more information, and I hope you don't mind me clarifying this. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is not right, Slim. I saw your timestamps below. There were four reverts on DSM section by me, though one of them was the computer-glitch thing I mentioned. I got careless with the back button and pressing "save" again. I confess I do that instinctively because on most pages where there's no edit conflict currently, I'd rather just have duplicate entries than lose what I had just done. So maybe on a hypertechnicality you could say I violated 3RR with four reverts (but no more) (but even there, several other editors reverted exactly the same thing, indicating the insertion was, if not exactly vandalism, still uniformly judged inappropriate).

But as I say, the Queen Victoria thing worked out fine, with no one 3RR'ing, and the initial disagreement going to the talk page, and compromise language being found. Other than the timeframe, that has nothing in common with the DSM thing (it's not even in the same section of the article, nor done by the same anon editor). On the DSM thing, some of what Bratsche (and perhaps you) mistake for reverts are cooperation in action. See the subsection on "Good editing in action" above where I detail how Tznkai and I cooperated to produce the best sentence. Each change is only to a few words, but no two of them are quite the same, and the sentence evolves with each edit, from worse to better.

It seems like the de facto rule is "don't work on the same article section for too long, even making different changes, if the 3RR admin on duty might be one who doesn't like you. And frankly, I don't think that's a good message to have for WP. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:03, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

That really isn't fair to Bratsche, Lulu. You reported the violation against the anon IP. Bratsche was then obliged to block anyone else who had violated 3RR. And if you reverted the DSM section four times, as you say you did, that's a violation. It makes no difference who else is doing it, whether you're right or wrong, whether your prose is brilliant and the other guy's stinks: revert in whole or in part (while doing other edits or not) more than three times in 24 hours, and it's a violation. I'm just hammering this home here so you don't get blocked again. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think we'll probably need to "agree to disagree" to an extent. Bratsche was certainly sloppy in this, at best. He wrote to another admin who questioned his action that I had reverted "six or seven times", not the four that I actually did (and also assumed an irrelevant sarcastic tone about my gender). And I think you could kinda tell from the edit comments that one of my reverts was from the computer glitch thing. But OK, four is indeed a no-no, so that's not strictly wrong. But then he also wrote on the 3RR page that all the completely unrelated edits around the Queen Victoria matter counted as reverts too, which they simply don't under any sensible meaning. I'm 98% sure that a different admin who didn't have a prior grudge would have looked at the sequence, and at most sent me a stern warning or blocked me for an hour symbolically (or at least asked for clarification first). So in a hyper-technical way, maybe Bratsche wasn't violating the admin rules, but it sure as heck didn't show any assumption of good faith either. And then I finally only got unblocked by asking Nunh-huh to help, after 24 hours were well up (though that might be a robot thing about still using the account/IP address; I don't understand how that stuff works). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:37, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Hi Lulu, I've left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:66.216.226.34. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Lulu, I checked the history and it looks like a clear violation. You removed the DSM material on Sept 1 at 17:08, 17:41, 18:20, 18:40, 19:32, and 04:32 Sept 2. As you've been blocked for 3RR before, a warning wouldn't be appropriate. I'm sorry, because I'd like to help you, but Bratsche was right to block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:24, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like there's little to do but run out the 24 hours, and when you come back and encounter recalcitrant vandals, ask for help in terms of protecting article to force discussion on the talk page. There's an unfortunate loophole in the 3RR - shared anonymous proxies wind up not getting blocked - which is yet another reason why "trolls love rules". - Nunh-huh 20:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually the shared anonymous proxy User:62.252.96.16 that Bratsche said he would have blocked if not for the shared status, is completely wrong. That user made an edit that has some problems, but did not 3RR. Several editors (including me and that anon) worked out compromise language that fixed the problem, with no 3RR by anyone around the Queen Victoria story. Bratsche was simply sloppy; and almost certainly because of a prior animosity towards me personally. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:35, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

As I understand it, each time you hit the edit button during a period in which you have been banned, the software resets the block timer. So trying to edit (even if you don't actually submit any edits) resets your 24 hour period and is therefore a bad idea. You are apparently supposed to calculate the time you will be permitted to return, or divine it in some other fashion. Since your 24 hours are certainly up, I have tried my skills at turning off the autoblocks. They may have exceeded my expertise, however, and I'd suggest acquiring a new dynamic IP if you can before seeing how successful I've been. I quite understand your dissatisfaction with the block. It seems clear that you were not the problem, and a mechanical response which equates those making a better article with those degrading the article is less than optimal...but it's the way things run here, mostly because we really can't rely on all admins to discern the difference all the time. Anyway, let me know if I've made things better or worse through these latest efforts. -Nunh-huh 09:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I got the sense it was something like that. I had found that I could log in and edit if I went to a shell/lynx account I have somewhere else. But lynx isn't quite as nice for WP. Unfortunately, I cannot acquire a new DSL dynamic IP "at will". My consumer router/firewall box has a connect/disconnect option in its interface, but most of the time doing that gives me the same IP address. The IP does change sometimes, but typically it remains semi-fixed for days/weeks at a time (unlike dialup which typically gives a different IP each time, but from the same /24 range. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:44, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Important notice, for immediate attention

This message has been posted on the talk pages of all users actively editing the Decency project. The RFAr has now been completed, documenting an extensive range of disruptive edits by Hipocrite and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, and is available on request.

Before the RFAr is submitted, I think a conversation on Noitall’s talk page User_talk:Noitall#Arbitration should be read, where Hipocrite seems to indicate he might be open to mediation. Perhaps the mediation process might be productive on this occasion, and I am willing to extend an olive branch before banning is contemplated. I will file a mediation request in the next few days, unless there are any objections on my talk page. Of course, if Hipocrite and/or Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters do not agree to mediation, the case will go immediately to arbcom. Erwin

Poll

Good afternoon, co-certifier. I thought you might want to record your opinion, whatever it may be, at Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold_in_updating_pages#Poll. JDG 23:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop removing names, then

The article I sourced says that "Reavalomanana" (your illiterate spelling) is an evangelical minister. If you continue to trash this article, I will report you for vandalism. This is your LAST warning. There has been a fair amount of discussion about your behaviour, by the way. You've got a lot of work to do mending fences with people you've gotten off-sides with. I created this article, and several others have worked on it for a long time. I'm not going to have it ripped to shreds by a clueless newbie. If you persist, I will consult the other "regulars", and if they agree, I will protect the page. David Cannon 11:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:Davidcannon.