From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Contents 1 Archives 1.1 Sandbox 2 New Stuff 2.1 Re: Yeah, right? 2.2 Afd 2.3 Request for Arbitration 2.4 Boundary 2.5 Google scholar 2.6 Category:Totalitarian dictators 2.7 Autobiography 2.8 Please stop your vandalism on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback 2.9 Wikiquette 2.10 Jguk 2 Arbitration request 2.11 Updates 2.12 More Monicasdude drama.... 2.13 Sorry. 2.14 POV 2.15 Protection 2.16 R&I summary style 2.17 You 2.18 new templates 2.19 Calm down 2.20 Danny Yee 2.21 Notable wikipedians 2.22 Talk:David Mertz 2.23 Thanks

Archives

I confess that I tire of foolishness quickly (even my own). At this rate, I'm going to need hourly archives...

Archive 1 / Archive 2 / Archive 3 / Archive 4 / Archive 5 / Archive 6 / Archive 7 / Archive 8 /

Sandbox

/sandbox1

New Stuff

Re: Yeah, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Arbitration

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

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

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

Boundary

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

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

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

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

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

Google scholar

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

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

Category:Totalitarian dictators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autobiography

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

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

Please stop your vandalism on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

--Silverback 16:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend to Silverback that s/he read about RfC procedures. S/he is objecting to the fact that statements of involved parties to RfC's evolve over the course of the RfC. S/he incorrectly believes that there is one original statement by each party, and that text (in a non-wiki fashion) becomes the "official record" of the statement. It ain't so. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette

IMO you're possibly the last person on wikipedia who needs to be talking to anyone about wikiquette. It's only a "favor" if it's something another person approves of and asks for. I'll keep the archive but not in such an obnoxious template box. I just want to also say I'm so disspointed in the way you handled yourself during both discussions and how immature you have been even if you don't see it as such. There are many people who agree with me (as evident in the voting) and I think it is important for you to reflect and look at your words and actions as they are truely the only ones that have been in poor taste. Looking at your dealings with at least half a dozen other wikipedians, other people seem to have issues with you as well and, IMO, they aren't all because of the other users. It can't be a coincidence that other wikipedians also see you in the same light as I do. Regardless of what you think, absolutely nothing I've done or said in our dealings have been out of malice or in bad faith (and I don't want to assume but it seems that you definitely view them as such or you wouldn't have taken such an innapropriate offense to them). I encourage you to read for yourself the rules of Wikiquette as they really did surprise me when I actually sat down and read through them in their entirety. I intend to use them as my firm guidelines from here on out and, once again, would like to encourage you to do the same. As far as I am concerned, after reading them, I am done talking to you, and will follow the guideline saying I won't interact with you any more than I need to. I won't be looking at your talk page or user page, and will keep the issues I have with you to myself as I cannot see any useful purpose for discussing them any further. I have better things to do than bicker about our disagreements any further and I hope you have better things to do as well. FIN. Farewell and good luck, --ScottyBoy900Q 01:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not use a template box, of course. I did notice that another editor added that box. In general, I think you'd do better as a general editor to be less caustic in tone, rather than like the above. I do know you are disappointment at the failure of your self-nomination for administratorship, but I think that was the right decision, at least for now. I confess I am also disappointed that you managed to recruit quite as many delete votes on the AfD you did, but of course it failed pretty strongly, even with the bad-faith votes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Btw. This is worth reading: Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes:

• Deleting your User Talk page or removing text from your User Talk page. Your User Talk page is the best way others have of communicating with you. It's OK to clean up or archive old content, but please be careful before removing content from your User Talk page; it may look as though you're trying to hide criticism.

Jguk 2 Arbitration request

Since you were involved / gave evidence in the first arbitration case involving User:Jguk and date notation, I thought you would be interested in a new arbitration request that has been lodged, again regarding User:Jguk and date notation. Please see WP:RFAr#jguk 2 if you would like to comment. Sortan 19:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, I haven't intersected enough with Jguk's editing of late to be able to provide meaningful commentary on his renewed semi-vandalism. Given his past, it seems quite plausible, but I cannot be specific on anything to help the RFar. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Updates

I've posted some important information here. --HappyCamper 01:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

More Monicasdude drama....

He broke the 3RR on three articles, and he's so incenced that I reported him that he's apparently trying to start an RfC on ME (LOL) [1]. Here's the 3RR violation: [2] BGC 23:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry.

Appears that in trying to help you with Operation Rescue I dragged my own personal problem into yours. Ahh well. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt. I assume from your edit comment that ThompsJohn is only making changes to disrupt pages you edit, right? I've had a couple of those over time. Unfortunately, if I revert the page, even though it's related to an entirely different change, I would skirt the border of 3RR myself (best to avoid, even if the ThompsJohn edits could be argued to be vandalism).

FWIW, I do think a few of the Palestinian groups are probably mis-listed (I don't much like the article, since it invites political rhetoric); but mass deleting all of them w/o discussion is clearly wrong too. And I'm guessing ThompsJohn doesn't actually care about the fine points of different Palestinian organizations. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, suspect he might want all of them removed (see his prior edits to articles related to Nazi memorials and figures). I believe pressing on the obviously terrorist wings will make the situation more clear. I will do the research to determine which of the PLO ofshoots are currently terrorist, and which have renounced, and do something other than blind reverting as soon as he's no longer on wikipedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

He does seem to have an edit history that is suggestive of some disturbing beliefs. But it's a short history, so I wouldn't want to rush to judgement. I've edited pages about topics/people that I strongly disagree with; it's possible that ThompsJohn was editing the page on that white supremacist band for reasons other than enodorsing their beliefs (you made some edits there too, no?). He's done a bit of excessive reversion and promoted minor rancor, but his edits themselves do not seem so awful or POV (of course, I did not look at all of them, maybe he wrote something genuinely offensive that I did not click on). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[3],[4],[5]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I had not noticed any of those three edits. It sure makes the suggestion of Nazi apologetics stronger to look at them. They still kinda walk the line though, being removals (that individually might be justified on other grounds) rather than actually writing new pro-Nazi content. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

POV

Please read carefully and/or orchestrate an intelligent response to my point made in the Terrorist Groups discussion.

Inserting your POV on the Terrorist Groups page is not acceptable.

--Jakes18 03:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

When you find yourself alone in wanting to change longstanding text in an article, and you violate 3RR against multiple other editors to try to enforce your POV, that's a good sign that you should step back and reconsider your editing behavior.

I have, of course, responded fully to your "point" on Talk:List of terrorist groups. I continue to welcome any improved citations you may choose to provide. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 14:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The burden lies on you to prove that Operation Rescue is a terrorist group, not for me to prove that it is not. If you make an unsupported inclusion, it is your responsibility to give support to it. --Jakes18 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion is:

1. Longstanding
2. Well-cited
3. Clearly explained
4. Supported by multiple editors

Moreover, by any reasonable criteria, the provision of many citations constitutes "proof". Just sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "la, la, la, I can't hear you" doesn't make the inclusion "unsupported". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Longstanding? That does not necessarily support your claim.

Well cited? I already picked through the citations, most of which come from organizations that are hardly "neutral". You have yet to respond to them.

Clearly explained? If you think falsely smearing an organization is clearly explaining it,you are not.

Supported by multiple editors? Yes, inserting their pro-abortion rights bias into it.

Protection

Done, now get it fixed (as I did this I won't block for 3RR) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

R&I summary style

Lulu, I think I can guess what sections you think need improvement wrt organization. There's once section in particular that I think needs work. It would be great if you could bring it up. Last time I tried to, I was voted down. --Rikurzhen 18:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I probably have less specifically in mind at this point than you think. I just find the current organization less than obvious (and someone with less familiarity would presumably find it still less so). I need to really read through the various subpages to get a better sense of exactly what is repeated where and how we might refactor things.

Btw. I guess I might have been a bit snippy in tone on the talk page. I feel like your apparent committment to a particular research program is leading you to believe in a far clearer consensus than is realistic. But overall, I do think the Race and intelligence article is well written and useful... there are just some edges where it clear that the editor is pushing readers to accept a Jensen-style hypothesis, rather than simply be aware of it (and I get a strong sense that a lot of those edges were written by you; though I'm not going to do the enormous forensic work to track down each sentence in the edit history). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You

I wish to interview you, or atleast find out your life story, and some other things. I am trying to research all about humankind and all types of peoples. I have randomly chosen you, if you wish to comply to this, it can be done in secrecy through e-mail, or easily on the talk pages, which ever is easiest for you. But if you don't like this idea, then tell me on talk page. Private Butcher 01:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm... OK. It's seems like a weird request (I've been interviewed before for various specific reasons, but not simply as a representative of humankind), but I have my email address posted on my user page. Depending on what you wish to ask me, I may or may not wish to put it on WP (even talk pages), so email is better. In fact, I don't 100% guarantee I'll answer at all, but send me an email with a modicum of information about your motives for doing interviews, and the type of questions you wish to ask. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

new templates

This might interest you, Lulu. I've created some templates to be used when new users either vandalise articles, post abuse or deliberately refuse to follow MoS styles. I've created three to cover people inserting styles in articles, now that policy (thankfully) is not to use them. They are

Styles2

Advice

---

You may not be aware of it, but Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which defines house styles here, has specific rules on the house of honorifics or styles in articles. Styles such as Majesty, Royal Highness, Holiness and others, and their acronyms (eg, HM, HRH, HH, etc) are no longer used in articles. Instead a specific template called an infobox is added into articles to list the relevant style. Please do not use these styles in the text of articles. They will simply be deleted. If you see any in an article, please remove them. Thank you.

Styles3

Warning

---

Please stop adding in styles and their acronyms into Wikipedia articles. It is against the Wikipedia:Manual of Style rules Wikipedians are required to follow. All regal styles you have added in will be deleted.

Styles4

This is your Final warning. Despite advice to stop, you have continued to insert honorifics and regal styles into articles. That is contrary to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Continued breaking of MoS rules, when you have been asked to stop, may be seen as vandalism. Any more deliberate vandalism may lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. You will not receive another warning.

They might be some use to you if you run into some of the periodic styles fanatics. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)}

Calm down

Lulu, you are repeatingly accusing Rik of dishonesty. You really must not do that—stay WP:COOL. I enjoy your contributions on the talk page of Race and intelligence, and would hate losing your input. So please stop abusing your fellow editor. Arbor 20:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Danny Yee

Thanks for creating Danny Yee, but there was a discussion of an earlier version five months ago and the verdict was to can the page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_11#Danny_Yee -- Danny Yee 22:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Notable wikipedians

I reverted your removal of the "Notable wikipedians" designation from Kevin B. MacDonald. Though he never registered a user name, MacDonald was very active in editing his article and there was no question of his identity. -Willmcw 23:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:David Mertz

Hi.
Just to be clear, I removed the comment below the template as unsigned, which can lend an "official air" to pronouncements. Clearly I would not have removed a signed comment in that manner. I had to read you edit summary twice to be sure that it wasn't my faith that you were questioning.
I'm not clear why you felt it required to make this statement, but it is a talk page. I've also added a comment under yours, I just want to insure that this doesn't come across as any sort of attack. I've got no stake in any of this, just doing my regular thing.
brenneman^(t)(c) 02:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh... not to give the wrong impression. You absolutely edited properly and in good-faith. I'm not so happy about a few of the AfD voters; I tend to be a bristly editor (but a good one), and some voters only voted to "get even" with me, which is childish. Not that I'm showing all that much maturity in my rant :-). Maybe if I slow-vent steam for a couple more weeks, I'll go ahead and yank out my comment on the AfD from the talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea. I need a script that will make my comments self-destruct after some set time.
brenneman^(t)(c) 02:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. But um, signed? And I'd take out the word "agressive", but that's just me.
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. [6] He's driving me insane. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Me too :-(. (the flower makes it all better though). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)