This user may have left Wikipedia. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has not edited Wikipedia since 16 February 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Under bridges is a good place for trolls

Boxes[edit]

PhD

This user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Philosophy.

This user has published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals.

This user is a professional writer or journalist.

py-5

This user is a professional Python programmer.

hs-N

This user sees the world around them in Haskell.

bash-2

This user is an intermediate Bash programmer.

prog-N

This user thinks in bytecode and dreams of electric sheep.

Port 110

This user's email client is telnet

This user uses free software wherever and whenever possible.

Content contributed by this user is released into the public domain.

According to the political compass this user is Economic Left (-8.12) and Social Libertarian (-8.72).

Archives[edit]

This editor is a **Veteran Editor IV** and is entitled to display this **Gold Editor Star**.

01 ǁ 02 ǁ 03 ǁ 04 ǁ 05 ǁ 06 ǁ 07 ǁ 08 ǁ 09 ǁ 10 ǁ
11 ǁ 12 ǁ 13 ǁ 14 ǁ 15 ǁ 16 ǁ 17 ǁ 18 ǁ 19 ǁ 20 ǁ
21 ǁ 22 ǁ 23 ǁ 24 ǁ 25 ǁ 26 ǁ 27 ǁ

29 ǁ 30 ǁ

Sandbox[edit]

New Stuff[edit]

Obama Page[edit]

Hello, I saw you'd been making some edits to the Obama page at the same time I'm making some as well. While I won't necessarily disagree with the edits, and do think the page needs changing (haven't had a chance to view most of your edits yet), I would recommend you tread carefully here. The article is on probation right now and I got in trouble the first time editing it. They like everything run by first on the talk page. Of course, the edit boldly rule for Wikipedia may allow you to do this, but just warning you as it could mean similar trouble to what I experienced. Also, I answered on the Obama talk page to let you know I may have to revert an edit since one of the proposed edits of mine will change the 04 election section and may provide more comprehensive info about Keyes and the results to put them more in perspective. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knee-jerk rallying behind UN's Richard Goldstone[edit]

Lulu of the Lotus-eaters, you have wrongfully deleted encyclopedic value information concerning the high-level controversy over Goldstone's documented aspirations to head the United Nations. This story was reported in two articles by the authoritative Guardian newspaper, and became a matter of public dispute between Goldstone and S. African president de Klerk. The matter of Goldstone's reported UN career aspirations is of strong encycolopedic value given that Goldstone came to accept a UN job about which many questions were raised.

While the matter may not reflect as favorably on Goldstone as the list of his awards, there is every reason to include this newsworthy controversy, and none to exclude it. Nor is there anything in the quotes from President de Klerk, Goldstone and The Guardian to suggest inclusion of this story has any bearing to a "soapbox."

Please recall the WP policies and principles of neutrality. Doing so is advisable before deleting entries that do not confirm with your positions toward one or another country, and could help contribute to greater mutual undertandingby on all sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.25.133 (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

Thank you for the welcome back message. Be assured that we are in complete agreement with respect to the new Keyes fan. I'd also suggest you keep an eye on User:Róbert Gida, who reminds me an awful lot of these folks (particularly the former). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Obamaism[edit]

Hello Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Obamaism, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No speedy criteria apply which is why it is at RfD. . Thank you. Nancy ^talk 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkline[edit]

Hey LotLE, have you been able to work on the sparkline you proposed on the Obama talk page? I am interested to see how it would turn out. Hope the holidays have been good for you! Arkon (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not put one together, at least yet. My feeling is that, despite your positive comment, the inclusion of this element would probably be rejected by the consensus of editors, which makes me less enthusiastic about doing the work of putting one together (I'd have to dig up tabular data on polling, and find some software that would generate the sparkline). That's a somewhat bigger quantum of work than changing just some words :-). Maybe I'll get around to it though. LotLE×talk 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo[edit]

Sorry you didn't like the pick I put on the tat page. I wasn't trying to do something malicious, I assure you. I did think it was strange that not once was there a picture of a standard upper-arm tattoo on the page, nor even a mention of this, arguably the most common place to get a modern tattoo. Any thoughts on how to remedy this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Qfl247 (talk • contribs)

What you added appears to simply be a vanity picture of yourself. As I indicated in my edit comment, it is not particularly germane to the section where you put it. Moreover, the tattoo design does not stand out as anything special for article purposes, and the composition of the photo is fairly bad. LotLE×talk 23:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puddle thinking merge[edit]

Currently, you're the only editor opposing the merge. Is the matter still of interest to you? If it is, I'd like to continue the discussion, otherwise I'll presume that you accept the merge as consensus. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your username.[edit]

I like it. :)--SexonfireKOL2010 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC) --SexonfireKOL2010 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SexonfireKOL2010 (talk • contribs)

Dorrsk is my username, and I found you through the neutral point of view page link. I get the feeling you'd be the right person to ask, since your mini bio has the same kind of google map link I'd put on mine if I made a habit of editing. I found a page, saw some language that was very biased, and edited it. Then I found out that someone undid the change, I changed it back and apparently the one who changed it has some power to declare whatever isn't his own words to be vandalism. I checked out his story and turns out the owner of a company that is part of a larger arms dealer for U.S. weapons, vehicles, and munitions decided he would take control over editing information about various explosives and military related articles which quickly explained where the bias came from and why it would be useless to argue with him. I stopped working on that issue upon the final warning notice, and I was wondering if you had any advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorrsk (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that another editor has a conflict of interest in editing an article, definitely follow the advice in that guideline in resolving the issue. LotLE×talk 07:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Instant Messenger. Pcap ping 04:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct your nomination to remove the misrepresentation of my closing statement.[edit]

Here Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Spreadsheet. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Joe Chill (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being pointy by putting the same template on my talk page when I never said anything like you did, answer my questions on the AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would state relevant evidence on AfD discussions, rather than snotty pokes at editors who find notability of topics you nominate, it would be a lot easier to imagine good faith on your part. LotLE×talk 01:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're only assuming bad faith because I use guidelines and you would rather ignore them! You can't even answer my questions on the AfD! I never say snotty things in AfD. I think that you might be confusing me with users like Miami and his buddy Smerdis. Joe Chill (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines you refer to are ones that I helped write many years before you first edited Wikipedia. Your behavior is unseemly and unhelpful. Just saying "ignore notability" is not a useful AfD approach. LotLE×talk 01:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Groups isn't a reliable source and free software doesn't equal automatic notability, so you seem to forget your own words or decided not to go by them which isn't helpful. Joe Chill (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we call a truce on this, Joe Chill? You are probably right, to a large degree, that I have lumped together mentally the comments of several frequent Delete !voters on software AfDs. That's not fair to you.

On the other hand, I do find it confrontational and unhelpful to have each Keep !vote I make on those discussions immediately followed by a generic retort "No, what you claimed is notable isn't notable." It's already understood perfectly well from your own !vote what your opinion is, and per-comment peanut-gallery retorts are generally unhelpful. There might be cases where such a per-comment disagreement is relevant: e.g. if a certain source is specifically biased or WP:COI in a way I might not have been aware of, that might make me reconsider the evidence. But an automatic claim that I don't understand WP:N really isn't productive. LotLE×talk 18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truce. By the way, I have rescued multiple software articles from AfD. Most of them were nominated by either JBsupreme, Miami, and Smerdis. Miami and Smerdis have a definite agenda to get rid of free software articles. Joe Chill (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not really" clauses[edit]

I have reverted your contribution because I do not feel the notes are "not really clauses". Everything listed in the inclusion criteria really do allow subjects that fit them have an article. Rather, they clarify certain actions (such as listing trivia) do not satisfy notability, which otherwise would be considered to under a broad interpretation of the text. I decided to put them below inclusion for organizational purposes, and they are equivalent to footnotes. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to disagree and I am willing to rework the wording of the section. (I do think that having to exclude certain situations from the original definition is undesirable) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes in a guideline are really never done in the way you have done there. They are very difficult to read and parse, and distracting from the principles actually being evinced. I have re-edited with smaller changes that put the text in main flow. I believe larger edits are needed, but let's start with that. LotLE×talk 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources for old FOSS[edit]

Linuxtoday.com is good way to find articles about old FOSS. They have article summaries going back to 2000 or so, even for defunct sites. You can then plug the URL in archive.org. (I hope Joe Chill is still watching this page too.) Pcap ping 10:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is a good suggestion for research into sourcing of FOSS articles. Best wishes.

I think another good site is my long-time employer (well, contracting company really), IBM developerWorks. We have not written about as many products as Linux Today has (since when covered, it tends to be at lengthier article focus), but there is a good bit. And IBM seems to do a decent job of keeping their old archives alive. LotLE×talk 10:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped watching it, but I checked back. Thanks for the link. Joe Chill (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Lulu, please stop confusing with JBsupreme (I saw your removed comment). Joe Chill (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (software)[edit]

Hello, In the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion_review#HOCR_.28software.29 I used a reference to Wikipedia:Notability (software). Because you are one of the contributors of Wikipedia:Notability (software) , you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kzamir (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACORN[edit]

I apologize for lumping you with a POV editor during my revert. Your edit[1] made me think about another editor. This edit is beyond unreasonable. I would think that most ACORN employees would denounce the action of this branch. Am I wrong? If so, should we express the sources that say it's a fluke. Doesn't much matter, when we read our sources. ThinkEnemies (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Frank[edit]

Lulu, please participate in the discussion section rather than making unilateral reverts. If you would like to discuss the merits of the edits to the Fannie Mae section you are encouraged to participate, however, when you make unilateral reverts and ignore invitations to join in the dialogue it circumvents the spirit of Wikipedia. Thank you.Lordvolton (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I concur with other editors that WP:BLP violations are not allowed, and have now stated so on Talk:Barney Frank. LotLE×talk 23:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I always look for sources. You bad faith assuming dick. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered looking in Google searches, or in a library, rather than only under rocks in your backyard?! Best wishes. LotLE×talk 23:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look in Google, Google Books, and Google News. We just have different opinions on notability. "rather than only under rocks in your backyard?". Dick. Troll. Joe Chill (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could formulate responses on AfD's that do not so closely resemble a "deletebot". Always voting delete to every topic, with no discussion of the nature of the software, nor any indication whatsoever that you have looked for sources, and always using exactly the same boilerplate phrase, looks a lot more like WP:POINT or WP:SOAPBOX than it does like good faith. LotLE×talk 23:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey troll, I even say that I look for sources. Saying that I don't is assuming bad faith. Joe Chill (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Joe Chill, I simply do not believe you have looked for sources prior to most of those rapid and boilerplate !votes. Using the word "troll" is not a good substitute for telling the truth, to my mind. LotLE×talk 23:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll always be a bad faith assuming dickish troll. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I had my own disputes with Lulu; he is a little in your face, but there's no need to call him names... Pcap ping 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

you said that joe is "Always voting delete to every topic". this is a completely bad faith accusation. i dont know his vote history, but even if he did vote delete every time, maybe that is because he only chooses to vote on articles which he thinks do not meet the requirements of having an article. 1000 delete votes in a row in non notable articles makes this place better, not worse (if you are fundamentalist about notability, that is). now if you were to say "joe voted delete on x, y, and z, articles when notability had already been clearly established", then you would have an argument. but just stating "he always votes delete" is just totally flawed. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theserialcomma, what I think Lulu is trying to say is that it what would really help Wikipedia is if Joe Chill learned how to use Google and related search engines properly. He can claim he knows, but he never shows evidence of looking for any sources. Even WP:AGF, not many users would be !voting delete on EVERY Afd they participate in. And please don't say that you forgive edits than involve accusing someone of being a dick, a troll and a violator of WP:AGF.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 01:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't !vote delete on every AfD. It would be most AfDs. I have different opinions on notability so why can't people accept that? Lulu really is a violator of AGF as the comments that I quoted in ANI show. Joe Chill (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's quite an ambitious and unrealistic undertaking to attempt to scrutinize an AFD nominator for allegedly not googling hard enough. the only person who has a wp:burden of providing evidence, realistically, practically, logically, scientifically, and demonstrably, will always and only be on the claimant. i.e. if you want the material to remain in the encyclopedia, the burden is on you to provide the evidence (RS and N) that it deserves to be here. attacking the nominator, ultimately, is an exercise in futility, because you cannot ever definitively prove that he did not google hard enough. sure, you can speculate that he doesn't search for sources before nominating, and base your evidence pattern of AFD behavior, but you are ultimately wasting your time because the true burden will always be on the one who wants the material to remain. short of some sort of egregious bad faith nominator, which i dont believe for one second that joe chill is, it is best to think of AFD as a forced scrutiny of an article's suitability for wikipedia, which only serves to make the encyclopedia better. if the article gets deleted, it was probably not worthy of inclusion. poorly sourced articles have the potential to give wikipedia a bad name because their content isn't reliably sourced, and when there is no RS, who knows what kind of potential nonsense the article states.

in the end, building a good encyclopedia is what matters. AFD nominators, whether they attempt to google for 10 hours or 10 seconds, are still doing the encyclopedia a helpful service by forcing more scrutiny on an article, which will result in a better article, or a deleted article which didnt pass our criteria for inclusion. dubiously sourced articles, sentences, and paragraphs are one of the main culprits behind WP's reputation for being unreliable. without a reliable source, its possible to introduce potential POV, lies, slander, hoaxes, advertising, and all sorts of unverifiable information. sometimes the unsourced material is innocuous, and other times it's embarrassingly false. so i support those who remove unsourced/poorly sourced content, and i also support those who put the work into hunting down reliable sources. no one is the bad guy here. you and joe are both doing the right thing, because in the end, the forced scrutiny of an AFD exposes an article to more editors.

i saw an objection before that joe votes delete all the time. i see no problem with this, however. if joe votes delete in 100 AFDs in a row, it doesnt mean necessarily that he is trying to delete every article he sees. rather, it could mean that he came across 10,000 articles and 100 of them did not meet notability standards. that is good editing, as far as i'm concerned. if he did a deep google search for all potential AFDs, he might not have had time to get to as many unsourced articles. what's better, an afd that many people see and scrutinize, and maybe save, or maybe get it deleted if it's not worthy... or an article, sitting in the mainspace, that someone comes across in google, and is filled with misinformation, making wikipedia look unreliable. i say AFD more unsourced articles, let more people scrutinize them, make policy based votes, and either improve or delete the article. either way, you end up with a better encyclopedia.

i think you are both doing good work, and i think you both make valid points. my perspective is that a poorly/unsourced statement or article is a direct liability to WP's reputation, and i support those who challenge any dubious content. i also support those who take the time to track down sources. collaboration is a dirty business, no doubt. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Colloquy[edit]

Actually, the {{update}} tag is relevant because the Mobile version is only roughly similar to the desktop one. It was even developed from the standard code base by different developers (this is said in one of the sources, forgot which). It needs to be covered in the article in some detail, but it's only mentioned in the infobox. Pcap ping 07:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that most of the refs are about the Mobile one, it could easily have a separate article, with its own screenshot, etc. Pcap ping 07:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler[edit]

Hi, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JBSupreme[edit]

Please note this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.133.96 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC incomplete[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JBsupreme

You need to make sure to fill in and complete the other required subsections for this RFC, or it will end up being deleted. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I'm not too familiar with RfCs (I think I started one once in 2006, but the details are vague). If you would like to help me put it in order, that would be great! On the other hand, I'm not sure that the RfC actually is the best forum; the ongoing AN/I might be better. After I wrote the AN/I, one response was "go put it on RfC", which I did just to cover bases. LotLE×talk 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the dispute
Desired outcome
Description
Evidence of disputed behavior
Applicable policies and guidelines
Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

Those are the empty things you have to complete. :) Cirt (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...again, I welcome help. Gotta run. LotLE×talk 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at the RFC page are quite clear. You already have a bit of the info, you just need to add it into those subsections appropriately... Cirt (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu, please feel free to quote me or reuse the diffs from the evidence I gathered before and during the ArbCom case [2] [3] [4]
Also [5] (linked here)
One thing I observed some time ago is that JBsupreme began placing an   in the edit summary box to prevent the MediaWiki software from automatically using the section title in the edit summary. This also prevents him from receiving an automated notice from one of the bots that warns editors who don't use edit summaries. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of David Mertz[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is David Mertz. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about a book you seem to have coauthored[edit]

This lists you as a coauthor, but it's not held anywhere, and I can't find it in online stores either. Strange. Pcap ping 02:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long story there, most of which I probably can't disclose. The short version is that I am not a coauthor on that book now, and it has not been published. There is a different book by a well known technical publisher that I am trying to get the contract ironed out on, but WP:CRYSTAL isn't allowed in the article. :-) LotLE×talk 03:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I guess ISBNs get pre-allocated, so even if a book doesn't get printed, the ISBN remains valid. Pcap ping 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. My Text Processing in Python was originally going to be published by a different publisher, and so has an unused ISBN somewhere for that (hypothetical) edition. Btw. The is the hundred-and-some libraries that have my book a lot or not very many? I have no real intuition about that. The book I allude to that I will probably be author on, is in 200-some libraries in its earlier editions :-).

I confess I'm slightly annoyed that David Eppstein !voted "Delete" on the AfD. He's commenting in absolute good faith, and in measured and reasonable terms. But I feel like his idea of notability is at too high a threshold... at least for the "kind of person" I am. Which is a strange type, I know. I've published in diverse areas, most of which are somewhere in the middle between general-audience and completely academic. So I neither have a huge readership, nor anything "fundamentally new" in highly technical areas... still, even if I were not me, I would want bios of people like me. Actually, I've rescued several somewhat similar articles of colleagues of mine in several fields (either started the article, or expanded and saved from AfD, or similar); none of them are either household names or earth-shaking theorists, but all (like me) are the sort of person one might occasionally want to look up info on. I lean towards keep on those things. Likewise for other bios of people I do not know, and will certainly never know, in areas unrelated to anything I do. LotLE×talk 04:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The catch is that the guidelines for WP:AUTHORs have been tightened a lot since the 2005 AfD(s). Back then there was a provision for 5000 copies of a book or so. Even having a widely held book these days isn't enough though; it needs to be highly cited, and yours is not. The current guideline reads (omitting the stuff about visual arts):

an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

As far as I know, although you're on the Python board, you are not one of the major software contributors there. I don't know much about OCV though, either about its importance, or how much you've contributed to it as a "body of work" (LOL for the double meaning). Pcap ping 04:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(dedent) Yeah, I'm really starting to have more sympathy with a number of friends of mine who have given up on writing for Wikipedia because the deletionists have held sway. The net result is pretty overwhelmingly bad, with articles now being deleted as much as being written. Of course I agree there should be some standards, but we seem almost to have reached the point where nothing that doesn't fit in Britannica is surviving AfD here.

I was thinking about the (badly) revised WP:AUTH, in relation to the notability of the bio on me. I think what might help to establish "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" is the fact that it was an article of mine that established the use of coroutines in Python. I pointed out that the technique could be done (in a slightly circuitous manner) using the existing generator mechanism. Based on that work, PEP 288 cited me. That PEP was itself rejected, but the same idea was raised again in PEP 342. However, the latter only cited PEP288, and no longer me directly. So even though, since I know all the people involved, I know how my idea was incorporated in the core language, this requires a little bit of WP:SYNTH to show. LotLE×talk 06:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tattoo Removal Edits[edit]

In regard to the link that you removed as "SPAM", this link lead to article that was published in "The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology". It explains the treatment of bulla which is a rare side effect of laser tattoo removal and is part of the wikipedia article. For this reason I would ask you kindly to revert your deletion of this link.

Thanking you in advance.

Sugarlady45

Treatment of Large Bulla Formation after Tattoo Removal with a Q-Switched Laser Sugarlady45 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link looks fine. Did I really make an edit that just removed that? I apologize if so. There was an insertion that had added a link to a commercial tattoo removal company, basically just advertising. I meant to revert that, but not to an academic article. I'll go look at the history. LotLE×talk 05:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was partially correct. I removed both a commercial WP:ADVERT and reasonable source in the same edit. However, the JCAD article is better used as a footnote to a prose description in the body text of its subject than as a generic "External link" that is present for non-obvious reasons. If you want to write a sentence or two summarizing the JCAD article, with a footnote to that article, I think that would be a great addition to the Tattoo removal article. LotLE×talk 05:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. You have new messages at ErikHaugen's talk page.
Message added 07:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Python Paste[edit]

At AfD. Needs considerable clean-up as well. Pcap ping 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonund[edit]

I see you're having problems with Jonund and his POV-pushing at Richard Goldstone. I've seen him at work at several articles, including Peace Now and September 11 attacks.

What do you think about the idea of bringing his behavior to AN/I? Do you think it would do any good? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea. If you start a report, I'll comment. LotLE×talk 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post something in the next day or so, and I'll leave you note to let you know. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the page for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio. Cunard (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger[edit]

Hi, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of James Watkins[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is James Watkins. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Watkins (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Alan Soble[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alan Soble. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Soble. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CEASE YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS NOW[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JBsupreme (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

To be specific, you are making false accusations about me, stooping so low as to resort to name calling me as a "vandal". In point of fact I have well over 20,000 edits here, many of which have been to reverse real, actual vandalism and report it to WP:AIV. That you disagree with my edits or don't like the fact that I am upholding WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and now WP:NPA policy is your problem, not mine. We also have standards for reliable sources, notability, discourage autobiographies, and so on. Again, I am sorry may not agree with these policies and standards, but it is no excuse for you to constantly refer to my edits, well within policy mind you, as "vandalism" just because you do not like them. If you disagree with my view on Wikipedia, fine, but grow up. JBsupreme (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

Final warning[edit]

Consider this a final warning about accusations against JBsupreme (talk · contribs).Toddst1 (talk)

Edit war[edit]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Alan Soble. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Further, I see a pattern of abusing reversions using WP:TW. Please review WP:Revert and change your editing patterns immediately. Toddst1 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I won't be disturbing your talk page any further this afternoon, I just wanted to respectfully say thanks for the withdrawal of your comments. I hope that we may be able to find middle ground between us (and the community at large) in the future. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate addition of WP:OR and misattribution of sources[edit]

I have reverted this edit of your on Haun Saussy. Tupper Saussy is not mentioned in either of those two sources you cite. Given this and your recent, related accusations against JBsupreme (talk · contribs), I find your recent editing highly disruptive and will block you if I see any further inappropriate reversions of others' edits or insertion of un-sourced material related to WP:BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2010

Python and whitespace[edit]

When people attack python, usually the thing they attack is the whitespace-for-blocks thing. I can see how that might reasonably go into a Criticism section or something, but it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. EG this SE Radio podcast about scripting languages. I've put together a web page (there are others) about why the whitespace issue shouldn't be a nail in Python's coffin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strombrg (talk • contribs) 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment on article content is best addressed on the relevant article talk page Talk:Python (programming language). I disagree that the longstanding and frequently discussed feature you have removed from lead should be relegated to a footnote, but in any case, that's a article talk not user talk matter. LotLE×talk 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Butler[edit]

Dear Lulu. I noticed, that you decided to delete an interview with Judith Butler. While I share your opinion about the specific interview, it wasn't even linked in the article or used as a citation/source, I couldn't help but thinking, that the interview might be useful in the future .... for someone else. Would a dedicated section "Interview" section above the references be a better solution, assuming we also feature the interviews linked already in the article? Thank you. Sholomsholom (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Barry Soetoro[edit]

List of Carpenter named articles[edit]

Hello,

Would you be so kind to review and comment List of Carpenter named articles which is pending a deletion review here. I would be happy with a merge back to the way it was with partial listings. But any comments welcome. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you.

P.S. You are mentioned once in relation to a prior incident, and as such I am required to notify you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation[edit]

Please help me understand how to resolve the questions your edit implies. See Talk:Conflation#Euler and Venn diagrams. --Tenmei (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Python add5 syntax.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Python add5 syntax.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio[edit]

I have collapsed the published works section per the suggestion of Tothwolf (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio. I hope that is okay. Cunard (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A common problem[edit]

Dear Wikipedist editor, I want to submit to your attention an our common problem: disruptive contributions and edit warring operated by user Derek farn (talk). This latter shows systematically a provoking behaviour and lacking of respect for other people’s work, typical of vandalism. I’ve sent this communication to many people having the same problem in order to organize a collective protest/action request directed to e.g. the Arbitration Committee or Requests for comment/User conduct (this latter procedure requires the participation of at least two users) or to the Wikipedia Community. If you agree with this initiative please contact me at this dedicated email address: clipeaster-1971 AT yahoo DOT com. In order to avoid creating of a forum section dedicated to Derek farn I suggest you to delete this communication once you’ve read it and, then, be in contact via email. Any suggestion are welcomed. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As another user pointed out to me that suggesting to be in contact outside wikipedia is not a correct way, for transparency reasons, so I conclude that we need to correspond via talk page. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted[edit]

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Raphael Samuels.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Raphael Samuels.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MAGIC programming language[edit]

Hi! I read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAGIC (programming language). I looked at the list of articles about MAGIC but had trouble finding reliable sources. Do you know of any reliable sources about this language? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Python add5 syntax.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Python add5 syntax.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BDD (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Add5t.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Add5.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Add5b.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Alex-Martelli.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:CitationTool/Race and intelligence[edit]

User:CitationTool/Race and intelligence, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CitationTool/Race and intelligence and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:CitationTool/Race and intelligence during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. aprock (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Danny Yee for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danny Yee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Yee (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Echo listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Echo. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Echo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Izno (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy. Since you had some involvement with the Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:ESCurtis 021-150px.png[edit]

The file File:ESCurtis 021-150px.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ESCurtis 021-150px.png[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:ESCurtis 021-150px.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:ESCurtis 021-125px.png[edit]

The file File:ESCurtis 021-125px.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Sorry[edit]

I'm Sorry for getting mad at you in 2006.

CJK (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Add5.png[edit]

The file File:Add5.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Add5t.png[edit]

The file File:Add5t.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Add5t.png[edit]

The file File:Add5t.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Old image not useful.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Udwadia–Kalaba equation for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Udwadia–Kalaba equation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udwadia–Kalaba equation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Tercer (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zizek Bibliography: deletion of Russia Today publications[edit]

Hello Lulu,

I write to you, because you have been editing the Slavoj Žižek Page. I'm editing the Zizek bibliography. Here I also mention the op-ed publications on Russia Today. There is a WP editor who holds the opinion, that these edits violate Wikipedia:RSP. I can't see how this is applicable. You can read my argument here. The editor doesn't respond.

If you have an interest in the subject, I would be happy, if you could contribute your opinion. If you don't have an interest, maybe you know someone else who might have?

With kind regards.

--Quin451 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rethinking Marxism Conflict of Interest[edit]

Dear Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters,

The entries for Rethinking Marxism and Jack Amariglio are flagged for conflict of interest. I have created these along the same time I set up the Stephen A Resnick entry—which you used to create the now very developed Richard D. Wolff entry. I wonder if you could do anything to improve the Rethinking Marxism and Jack Amariglio entries so that they are not marked anymore?

Many thanks,

Ymadra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymadra (talk • contribs) 18:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been pruned from a list[edit]

Hi Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Courage to Care Award[edit]

The article Courage to Care Award has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Two press releases make a poor notability case, and I only see trivial mentions elsewhere.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated Project: Starfighter for deletion[edit]

Hi, I'm renominating this article for deletion. You can participate here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Measuring programming language popularity for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Measuring programming language popularity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Measuring programming language popularity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AtlasDuane (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]