User talk:Lo2u/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lo2u. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Lo2u/Archive 1, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! -- Alf ^melmac 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lo2u, I just saw your edit summary here [1] :-) Good one. So, here's another hearty welcome for you! There's quite a lively little community of folks interested in Greek language and linguistics here, and we'll be delighted to see you join our ranks with your expertise. Actually, there's currently an initiative for some rewriting and restructuring of the whole series of Greek-related articles (see Talk:Greek language). Your input would be very much appreciated! And you'd have a nice opportunity of meeting the rest of the club too. So, see you around. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Fut Perf. Best. --Lo2u 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Irish neutrality page the nor can certainly not exist on its own and more commonly in used in a Neither ... nor sentence. I don't recall having seen nor being used properly after any negative other than neither but you may well be correct. Anyway, your addition of either is clear and works well. Cheers ww2censor 15:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The nor on its own at the start of a sentence was definitely wrong. Cheers & thanks ww2censor 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was wrong - not in the way that "neither" to follow a negative (where "nor" was what was actually meant) was wrong before. Some people don't like "and", "but", "nor" etc. at the beginning of a sentence and I accept that - but there's nothing preventing it, as long as it continues a first negative. My construction ("...it could not aid Britain... Nor could it...") was, for these purposes, identical to (for example) Evelyn Waugh's from Brideshead Revisited:

"I knew they could not be assuaged by words. Nor could I have spoken, for the answer to her question was still unformed..."

And I can give many more examples of its use. I don't mind the change but there was nothing incorrect in what I wrote. "Nor" certainly doesn't need to be paired with "neither" any more than "or" needs to be paired with "either".--Lo2u 18:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Lo2u! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 15:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of the 202.156.6.54 and 218.212.118.230's edits were mine. I think the page stopped loading or something and did not finish loading the Areas/Cities section of the entry. I tried to replace the text, then discovered i managed to miss another small section of the Flaris's entry, and added it in and my IP somehow managed to switch itself around the whole time... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 July 2006.

Really sorry. Go ahead and make your changes.--Lo2u 13:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. First or second day at VP? I guess i should get an account... If only Wikipedia let more than 6 people create an account on the same IP on the same day.--202.156.6.54 14:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, second day actually. And what fun. Once again, apologies.--Lo2u 14:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see... Your vandals leave interesting edits behind, eh?--202.156.6.54 14:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, finally got an account now...--Slayze 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slayze, that's great. And I noticed you saved me the trouble of changing the username on my user page. Thanks. And happy editing. BTW, I thought about adding this to your own talk page but I think it might deprive you of your "Welcome" message if I do.--Lo2u 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message? Didn't receive any yet in any case.--Slayze 15:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you will, like item 1 on my talk page.--Lo2u 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that it was a now reported bug that caused the uncomplete loading. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5643 --Slayze 13:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my talk page after the vandalism. I appreciate it! --Matt 15:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you spotting the vanadal, the Ottawa based IP has now been included in a list [suspected sock puppets]. Sorry for getting you caught up in this whole mess. Pete Peters 00:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matt and Pete, it's not a problem. Best.--Lo2u 09:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page - most grateful! Rgds, - Trident13 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you left the Test message on the wrong user's talk page. Check the history on Dalek. -Seidenstud16:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

--No problem. But, to make up for it, I'm stealing your "whom" userbox!  ;-) -Seidenstud 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just organizing my userboxes, so please stop vandalizing my userpage. Thank you kind and polite mister! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.25.242.198 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

You're not allowed to remove vandalism warnings. Please stop.--Lo2u 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll let your talk page stay as it is. But I don't think edits like this [2] constitute reorganisation.--Lo2u 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I just got your message. I completely agree with you. It is not me that is changing the name, and I have been reverting the names of communities to "Jews" from the "hebrew-israelites" that someone is titling them. I too believe it is politically motivated and I can say for sure that I am not using a 2nd IP address as I do not have access to one. I am trying to stop the changing of tribes names to "hebrew-israelites" because I too believe that Jews should be called as such. I do not know who is causing the vandalism on that page but I can say for sure it is not me. I apologize if my edits led you to conclude that I was the one causing vandalism. Thanks for the message. Together hopefully we can find out who the vandal is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.92.227 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Sorry, I sent that message to lots of IPs. I should have been more careful. Best --Lo2u 08:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lo2u, it looks like vandalism to me, so I've semi-protected the page, and I'll help to keep an eye on it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

i dont understand why my edit was reverted. If you spend the time to investigate what i wrote, you will not be so quick to call what i wrote 'nonsense'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.130.227 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. If I reverted something that I shouldn't have reverted I apologise. The thing is it's quite difficult for me to work out what you're referring to. You're using an AOL IP that changes with every page you load. If you'll let me know what you were editing (and perhaps why it shouldn't have been reverted, but I won't insist on that) I'll take a look. Best.--Lo2u 00:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops sorry. My talk page was vandalised shortly after you made your post and I assumed that IP left this message. Proper reply pending...--Lo2u 00:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the reason for my removal of this content is that Wikipedia has a fairly strict policy on verifiability. There's a lot about it here. Basically it means that Wikipedia isn't supposed to publish new information for the first time; it must be possible to verify any fact mentioned in an article by looking elsewhere. Your edits look to me like rumours and although rumours might sometimes find a place in an article, with a strong health warning, you don't even provide a date that this happened or the name of the person concerned. If you say your edits weren't nonsense then I'll accept that but they still can't be added here. Not unless you can find a newspaper article or something that verifies what you say. If you source this I'll step aside and let you add the information. --Lo2u 00:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stifle. Would you take a look here? I don't know if you remember this page but an anonymous user just added something to the main page and then to the talk page saying it was a hoax and I think he's right. You wrote something to that effect early on but your comment was deleted. Anyway thought you should know.--Lo2u 00:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I expect the prod will go through; if it doesn't then AFD it. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - I'd quite forgotten about our earlier encounter, actually. The story with that Mywayyy guy is a sad one, he could have been a reasonably decent contributor, but he's been on an extremely stubborn revert-warring pattern, until he got himself banned for his continuous block evasions and 3RR violations. We've built all sorts of golden bridges for him, but he just won't understand he can't go on revert-warring like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lo2u. I wanted to drop you a line and address that while I believe Robertsteadman did stalk Neuropean, my intuition is that Neuropean was someone who registered here with the original intent of WP:POINT violations and ended up reaping the whirlwhind by pushing Robert. I see more and more editors who engage in questionable behavior and when things turn pear shaped on them claim "I'm suffering from clinical depression!" (which Neuropean did at least once to Robert). I'm not going to make excuses for Robert, since I feel he did not have basis for the RFCUs (that were denied) and the RFIs (I couldn't find any connections the two times I dug into things). However, I'm not going to shed tears for wounded Neuropean...who may still be trying to play things to his advantage. Maybe with him gone Robert will go back to productive editing. Syrthiss 12:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope to post something about it at WP:ANI before I go to bed tonight. I feel bad about what has happened, because I saw the distressed message Neuropean sent Rob (and had also seen some of the frivolous RFCUs and RFIs that Rob was filing), and I saw that it was obvious that Rob was stalking Neuropean, and I intended to do something, but didn't move quickly enough. As I see it, Rob was blocked indefinitely, and was unblocked on condition that he would behave himself. I have undeleted the old histories of the Robsteadman user and talk pages, and am also looking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deskana for diffs. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see my report at AN/I. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

On the same subject if you think that IP user is Robertsteadman (talk · contribs) evading a block, you might want to say so at ANI Viridae^Talk

Nope not necessary. Musical Linguist may have got in first because I reported him to AN/I, I was just thinking you might like to add a comment if you had delaings with him in the first place. Viridae^Talk 13:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't actually a sock report. That was a block evasion one. However if you take a look at WP:AN there is a dedicated page for reporting socks (WP:SSP). Also pages for reporting anything else that needs administrator assistance outside of deletions. Viridae^Talk 13:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That question I have no idea about. Never had to do it. Viridae^Talk 14:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that a listing of fictional couples (many of which who are not even fictionally married) has any place in an article ostensibly discussing interracial marriage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.226.129 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 July 2006

I'm not sure. Are any of these fictional characters married? You may have a point. I have no interest in the article so please don't take my revert personally. It's just that major changes need to involve consensus. Post something on the talk page and see what others say. Hope this is ok. Best. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the edit summary matched exactly the edit... Not my fault we made edits at basically the same time :) /wangi 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. Somewhat freaky. Although I doubt that we have met in any other forums before this one, that's where I stole this name from. I currently in the Usurption process to get my old username merged to this one, but the Beurocrats can't agree on the rules behind it at the moment.

But if you didn't notice, my account name is User:ArdoMelnikov, which is a pseudonym I used for the nickname Logical2u on an internet forum (Specifically PSO-world, for Phantasy Star Online games) a long time ago.

Then I forgot I had made a User:Logical2u on wiki. So, I am not attempting to stalk, copy, or impersonate you in anyway. In fact I didn't even know such a name existed on Wiki until that talk page.

If there's been any confusion, many regrets. Logical2u 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing (twice, no less) what that anonymous prankster did to my user page. I see that he/she/it also vandalized your own user page as well as the article on Oprah Winfrey.

I'm almost honored to be in such rarefied company.

Again, thank you. ForDorothy 00:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've avoided being very clear in my arguments assuming I'd be labelled an English nationalist, which I'm not by the way. I'm Welsh by birth and have little English ancestry. I use the England user box because it was the only one I could find that didn't say "This user is proud to be...". --Lo2u (T • C) 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to make one for you, if you're not sure how to. Just tell me what you'd like on it (I assume something Welsh? You tell me). File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 19:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

I wonder whether you're in a position to help to bring this one back to FA standards. Tony 11:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Any chance you might be able to take and upload a photograph please? ([3] location) - Kittybrewster 08:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have been working on Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet (United Kingdom), but have been having trouble to trying to source this paragraph: "Under Charles Kennedy's leadership, and with the increase in numbers of Liberal Democrat MPs, the Liberal Democrats began to style their senior front-bench team as a Shadow Cabinet although convention has usually only applied the title to the senior front-bench team of the principle opposition party. This has been disputed by the Conservative Party." I saw your edits to the status of the lib dem front bench and was wondering if you knew of anywhere that could be used to reference this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi LO2U, well flicking about on WP I hit upon your user-page. Some very good thoughts there about WP etc and IP editors. I didn't notice anything wrong with your spelling, and it appears spot-on to me. Just to let you know that there is a great little resource that one can add to their browser. You can get it at http://www.iespell.com/ -Gold♣heart 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that's because I get very emabarrassed if I make mistakes - had to look up "exaggerate" several times during that article discussion :-). Thanks for the link - I'll take a look tomorrow. BTW - I'm very pleased that article's (hopefully) sorted out. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one of those articles that get pressured from both "sides". If there was less of the pressure involved, then a very nice little article could ensue. Gold♣heart 22:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lo2u, I am really very sorry if you picked me up wrong on what I wrote. The last thing I want to do is accuse someone of making a personal attack, but I am afraid that Bastun may have done that by commenting on other editors, and not the content. I always find your input refreshing, and I appreciate your views, and really I agree with much of what you write. Pure and simple, like a good council, I have given the other views on the matter. We can't have all 70 million people in these islands all on the talk page together, and I am representing one of those views. But there are many views, and no particular view has correctitude on its side. Reminds me of the old Indian proverb that "the truth is many sided". Sorry again, I was trying to address two editors on my last input, and messed it up a bit in that regard.Gold♣heart 01:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know Lo2u, personal attacks are not acceptable under any circumstance on WP. I have never gone down that road, and I hope I never will. Editors must always comment on content, and not the on the other editor, that's pretty well written in stone. Nor is it helpful to defend personal attacks, no matter from whatever direction, and if a personal attack is caused, an apology must follow. That's what I believe, and that is the standard I would apply to myself. During my early days on WP, one of my very well meaning jokes was taken up wrongly by a fellow editor, and I applied that principle, and apologised and explained my disposition at that particular time. Sarah took this as a personal attack 3 days ago, maybe you missed it [4]. Well I wouldn't defend that one either. In any event, I'm out of the page. Gold♣heart 01:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No they're not acceptable, you're right. The way I took the comment you refer to[5] was that Bastun was telling Sarah not to encourage people to be trolls - if you see what I mean. But if he stepped over the line that's not something I want to excuse. All the best.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 11:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the "stalking" remark! I kinda guessed what happened. But it is probably very rude to have a row on someone else's talkpage! (Sarah777 23:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Lo2u - I'm calming down slowly, but want to know if you are you still in support of a RfC for Sarah? An earlier one that I had prepared was here - she had cooled down then, and I was hoping it would stay that way, but see it has not. My concern is simply her attitude to discussion and want her to see that its not the way and that others don't appreciate it. --sony-youth^pléigh 07:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sony, I'd like to see how the next day or so turns out really. It'd be nice to avoid it if at all possible - also, the things on that RfC are a little before my dealings with Sarah. To be honest I don't dislike her at all, I just want to see a change in the way she conducts herself on the talk pages. I've tried to resolve the situation with her too and there are many things that have happened since then that show it didn't work. If the RfC goes ahead, I suggest you start from scratch getting those diffs - some of them are less trivial than others and there's probably no need for 40+. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lo2u - add what you feel necessary. I am quite exhausted, and so only added this weeks bits that affected me alone, but, please, lay it all out there. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Will do in the morning. (Time for bed.) As a favour though? An RfC needs two signatories before it gets activated (otherwise it gets cancelled out after 48 hours). Could you take a look at it tomorrow and, if you're happy with it, put your name to "Users certifying the basis for this dispute"? I'd hate it if it got stuck out on a technicality. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --sony-youth^pléigh 01:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Lo, in all the talk criss-crossing the RfC and related pages I missed this contribution from you:

Sarah I accept you're not running a shared account, though I think I had reasonable grounds to ask the question. I maintain that all of the diffs provided are appropriate evidence and that in spite of HughSheehy's comments, long Anglophobic rants that make no mention of the article's content are uncivil. Sony's comment reproduced on the RfC is perhaps regretable though if the writing were all the same size I don't think it would seem nearly as passionate. With this exception I don't think Sony can be called uncivil. Nevertheless Sarah there may be some mileage in what you say. If an admin would be willing, supervisation could apply to other concerned parties (I would be happy to be bound by an agreement too) - not just to Sarah and Sony. I suggest the following terms:

::1. That nobody make an allegation of bias, incivility or personal attack on the talk page articles and that before doing so on a user page they involve the supervising admin.

::2. That the various parties agree to remove or reword any comment they should make that the supervising admin should find uncivil - even if they disagree with his view.

::3. What seems like an aggressive rant to some people might seem far less so if its relevance to article content is clearly asserted and explained. Editors, when writing about something they feel passionate about should strive to explain the connection with the article's content - especially if replying to the comments of another editor with which they disagree. It is not necessary to win an argument if doing so will have no impact on the article.

::4. That it be understood that terms like "garbage", when used to describe others' opinions are likely to provoke hostility - even if this is not expressed on the talk page - and present an obstacle to civility and the assumption of good faith. They will be avoided in future.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lo, as you stated somewhere, "not even" I have have ever accused you of incivility. I agree to your 4 points; they are an expansion of what I earlier agreed to and the important point for me is that while I am prepared to admit breaching WP:CIVIL on occasions (though not on all the occasions in the citation by a long shot) - I also genuinely believe (and based on the way this RfC is going I'm not alone) that my incivility was no worse than that of several of my main accusers.

I would think Swatjester an ideal referee if he agreed; he is an Admin, he blocked me for annoying him (in what I still regard as an abuse of power); we had an extremely sharp exchange; he unblocked and we parted without any clear resolution. Yet, when the RfC cropped up he made what I regarded as a very balanced and fair comment on the RfC.

I have no difficulty with some "hands on" moderation of certain sensitive articles - just so long I am not being singled out as a uniquely bad offender. Regards (Sarah777 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)) btw, I disagree with your characterisation of some of my arguments as long Anglophobic rants...but that's for another day maybe!

If you actually read my post instead of reverting it, you would have noticed that I didn't downplay Islam's reverence for Jesus Christ, but actually downplayed Christianity's reverence for him. In Christianity he is THE prophet, but in Islam he is amongst many others in a series from Abram/Abraha,/Ibrahim to Moses/Musa to Jesus/Isa to Muhammad, and in Arabic culture (the culture pertaining to those who use the language), it is common to name boys after any of the prophets (as Muslims consider the prophets of the OT and NT as true prophets, yet whose words were misconstrued by fallible men). This practice was observed in the Arabic-speaking, Islam-following Al-Andalus, where Spanish culture was much influenced by the Arabs and Berbers who occupied the land for several centuries. Hence, only in Iberian languages and Arabic are there Christians who name their children "Jesus" (because of Muslim influence, where this is a common practice since Jesus is "just one of many prophets", NOT "THE" prophet as he is Christianity). And, yes, I do consider the simple elucidation of an otherwise almost completely stated fact "minor", and any such edit will be marked as such. JesseRafe 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear me, I really didn't expect that sort of response. I posted the note because looking at your summaries it was clear you almost always use the "minor" check box, whose function is basically for correcting spelling mistakes and making other cosmetic changes not - as is the case with your most recent edit - for reverting someone else. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Wetman repeatedly posted messages insisting Lo2u had changed the dating conventions used on pages, something that Lo2u neither practices nor condones.

BC/AD is a convention always used in Wikipedia articles on specifically Christian subjects. In non-Christian subjects, changing BCE/CE to BC/AD is a discourtesy, rather like "correcting" spelling to American practice. I'm sure you understand that whatever convention is established in an article, we simply go with it. You'll notice that no one ever "corrects" BCE to BC: why do you suppose that is? --Wetman 09:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wetman. I think you've misunderstood the purpose of my edit. I quite agree with what you've said. I would never change the conventions of an article to suit my tastes - and I never have. In fact I'm a British user who has on several occassions corrected rogue British spellings for the same reason. If you look carefully, there were two dates - one was BC and the other was BCE. I can't be bothered looking up the relevant guidelines now but I believe they say Wikipedia doesn't have any preference except that articles should be consistent. I merely changed the first date that came to hand. It seems to me that you may have inadvertently done what you accused me of - my edit first established a BC/BCE convention and you went against that. An anon (not me) has just changed the thing back to BC now but if you want to change it to BCE again go ahead, I'm really not bothered - but do change both dates this time. However, I think whoever reverted you last time would have good reason to complain if you reverted him. All the best. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wetman's stance became increasingly hostile and desperate. He deleted Lo2u's explanation and posted personal attacks. Lo2u did not respond with personal attacks himself but he did delete Wetman's post (from his own talk page), his own posts and the personal attacks. The following three points should be recorded:
1. On sensible responses:
Scenario A: An inexperienced user dislikes BCE (or BC, American spellings, etc) and thinks he can get away with making wholesale changes to suit his taste
Correct response: A polite note informing him that this behaviour is not acceptable; that we do not change established styles on Wikipedia.
Scenario B: A reasonably experienced user attempts to normalise a page using mixed styles, where the correct style is questionable. You disagree with his choice.
Correct response: Changing the page's style to the one you believe is correct. Possibly explaining why on the article's talk page.
Incorrect response: As per correct response to Scenario A + reverting to the mixed styles.
2. The first major (non-stub) edit used BC. It was correct to select this as an establised style.
3. Nevertheless, Lo2u has never expressed a preference for any style. It was Lo2u who converted the article to BCE in order to satisfy Wetman's hostile demands.

Hi, Lo2u. I'm not sure about your removal of the word "holocaust" in the Great Fire of London. You have a point, certainly. I sense that the word is getting less likely to be used in the original, general sense, and more to be treated as a "name" for the Jewish holocaust. (Though then surely with a capital H?) Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that it's in my source; it's the way Hanson puts it. (So I could use a longer Hanson quote that included it, but it would mean going back to the library...) Anyway. I'm in two minds about the appropriateness of the word. Bishonen | talk 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC).

Hi, I've no strong objections. It wasn't just the WWII connection that made me think it was inappropriate. I wasn't sure it was quite the right word - not exactly wrong but (a bit like "survivors of the slaughter" or "survivors of the quagmire") in this non-literary context it jars because it's not standard vocabulary. Not sure I'm explaining that very well. Anyway, if you want to put it back I will understand - I don't want to create lots of work for something this small. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi to you both. I again reverted back to "holocaust." The word has a very basic definition and the usage will hopefully be understood in the context of the article. The term was used for this type of disaster long before it was appropriated for the Jewish Holocaust, and will be used again, I'm sure. The recent California fires come to mind. As for not being standard vocabulary? Well, that may say more about our current school system than anything. I will not revert again, if you two decide otherwise. Best........... WBardwin 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've been deleting some of the more far-fetched nonsense on the Ruth Ellis page. Thank heavens for that! Some misguided people genuinely believe that Ellis never did it, and even if she did kill Blakely she was forced to, and even if she confessed to the crime it must have been a totally false confession - even though she confessed in open court in front of dozens of people. These views come from the same kind of people who believe the Apollo moon-landings were faked and that "The Da Vinci Code" movie is a documentary ie not fiction. My all-time favourite is the ludicrous assertion by "Charlton1" that children standing outside Holloway Prison could hear the scaffold being erected. Incredible or what? Now, I'm sure the children claimed they could hear the sound of a scaffold being erected, but that doesn't mean it was true. Never mind the fact that the gallows were indoors, and an integral part of any British prison in their own dedicated room, situated directly adjoining the condemned cell and required no assembly whatsoever! A similar, totally fallacious comment appears in the existing article re. the sound of a scaffold being erected. Never mind the fact that it simply couldn't have happened and any noise heard would have been someone slamming a door or mending one. You can show people proof, but they have their own rigid agenda so will completely ignore it and believe what they want. I've discussed this in detail, but it's pointless because they just don't want to know:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charlton1

Oh, and here's a copy of the official autopsy report which mentions the brandy that (according to Charlton1) Ellis never drank. Quite why it's so terribly important to disprove that Ellis drank brandy prior to being hanged is beyond me:-

Official autopsy report on Ruth Ellis

All I can say is please keep on reverting all the silly stuff re. Ruth Ellis. You are doing people a big favour by removing original research.

Nabokov (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looked far,far too much like a world exclusive. I suppose the root of the problem lay in the fact that Charlton1 either didn't know about or didn't understand the WP:OR principle. She's not the first to believe she's made a new discovery and rush to Wikipedia to type it up. Nevertheless I think a shorter, properly sourced, well-written "Some people believe..." paragraph, along the same lines as the one that was removed, might just find a place in the article. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, noticed your constructive edits on the Policy Exchange page. This is a controversial subject so the page is being updated continuously and there is also some unfortunate evidence of vandalism or deletion of previous edits which result in a very skewed (ie non-NPOV) version (most recently tonight). Would be grateful if you could monitor this as I don't think American administrators are "getting it"! Cheers and Merry Xmas 81.105.65.95 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is definitely one that needs to be watched, especially considering what I've just had to revert[6]. That was probably the most controversial and argumentative Newnight interview of the last few years and it seems to have aroused strong feelings on both sides. Have a very happy Christmas. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, but wasn't it excellent television? I confess I don't really watch the programme but this was gripping and as you say controversial. Proper fisticuffs...! Just saw your revert - obviously strong feelings on either side as you say. Thanks so much for keeping an eye on it and all the best of the festive season to you and yours! 81.105.65.95 (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It was very entertaining. Just a shame Jeremy Paxman didn't appear to have been properly briefed. Have a great Christmas! --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello sorry to intrude but I saw you had been editing the POlicy Exchange page and I have made edits there too. Mine were made a long time ago but since then I've seen they have been edited again but ho hum thats Wikipedia. However it looks like there was a major edit war over the past few days and as an administrator you may want to intervene. The talk page is FAR too long for me to read through so I can't say what the issues are but it might be getting a bit silly and out of control I think. I think there needs to be more editors bought into the discussion as it seem to be being dominated by one or two posters. I haven't made an edit on the article myself as no doubt it will be reverted. This type of thing puts people off coming to Wikipedia in the first place.

Masterrows (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As a small token of appreciation, I give you a little sun to brighten your day.- LA @ 10:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ribbon

Lo2u, thank you for pointing out the correct word for a nine part series, ennealogy. I had no idea that I had gotten it wrong when I first named the film list. Why didn't you just change the title of that list to List of film ennealogies to be like the rest of the series of lists? - LA @ 10:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

An even more belated thank you. Why didn't I just change it? I suppose I'm not bold enough. :-) --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's standard practice that when a problem is fixed, the tag is removed. Tag it for notability, by all means, but I really can't see why, again and again, you keep retagging as a "neologism" something that is sourced as in use for a century. Except your contention that it isn't in continuous use, but keeps being reminted as a neologism every few years, but that's something you've never actually sourced. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. You say "when the problem is fixed" but the page hasn't really changed since the tag was put there. The neologism tag was there because there are guidelines given in WP:NEO that should also be borne in mind by those considering starting articles on protologisms, nonce words and related phenomena. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we OK now? Completely re-phrased - inspect at you leisure --77.98.178.218 (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Though your changes are no longer the blatant point of viewing pushing they were, I have no idea what this means: "A recent example is the War on Terror police of the Bush Bush regime which for a short time recieved widespread support in the United States". The rest of the sections is talking about citizens of a country turning against their own government and actively supporting terrorists. I see absolutely no connection with the United States - the only purpose of this addition seems to be to point out that the War in Iraq was unpopular, a very different thing. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It says: civilian opinion at times backed the harsh countermeasures used by governments against revolutionary or insurgent movements. (A recent example is the War on Terror police of the Bush Bush regime which for a short time recieved widespread support in the United States). No it doesn't make sense but I will fix that - it does fit with the section though. --77.98.178.218 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. How about you change "Bush regime" to "American government" and take out the parentheses so it looks like part of the article, rather than something you tacked on at the end? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it possibly, please, to have just one humble little link on the "apologetics" article? That really is what my site is all about. It just happens to encompass virtually every other aspect of life, and how to know for certain what "Truth" really is. And, as you can see, I ask for NO donations, and make absolutely NO money from it. I only pray that many lost people may have greater meaning and purpose in life!

Thanks, Mr. Little Guy on the vast Internet Superhighway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.158.50 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 3 August 2006

Lo2u,

Thanks! I greatly appreciate your time and your kindness! Peace and many blessings to you and yours!

Oscar

PS: If, by chance, you should ever learn that my website has somehow helped even just one person live a better, more meaningful life, please feel free to share the "Three Steps" with as many people as your heart, and conscience, leads you, in whatever ways you can. I also personally invite you to investigate it further - test it out for yourself - as time allows!

These are specific pages/articles I firmly believe (and many others have also commented very favorably) could help the most people, or, help those people who need it most:

Step One: Natural Apologetics

How can we really know, for certain, that God exists?

http://www.threestepstothefountain.com/step1.html

(relevant Wikipedia articles include: depression, anxiety, addiction, absolute truth, faith, reason, God, Intelligent Design, creation, monotheism, atheism, polytheism, pantheism...)

Step Two: Christian Apologetics

How can we really know that Christianity is true?

http://www.threestepstothefountain.com/step2.html

(relevant Wikipedia articles: Monotheism, Jesus, Christ, Gregorian calendar, Pope Gregory, A.D.[Anno Domini=year of the Lord], Islam, Judaism, monotheism, bible, Church, faith, reason, truth, Christian apologetics...)

Step Three: Catholic Apologetics

How can we really know which branch, or division of Christianity is "the most" true?

http://www.threestepstothefountain.com/step3.html

(relevant Wikipedia articles: Catholic, Primacy of Peter, papacy, apostles, magisterium, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, reformation, Sola Scriptura, scripture alone, bible alone, Sola Fide, faith alone, Church history, early Church fathers, apostolic fathers, Catholic apologetics...)

And last, but "soitenly" not least... the "Catholic Jackpot", with many solid, trustworthy links (audio, video, news, bibles, Catholic Catechisms, studies, etc.), and the whole website is FREE! I don't even ask for a donation!:

http://www.threestepstothefountain.com/favorites.html

Thanks again, Lo2u! Peace, prayers, and the love of God be with you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.158.50 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 August 2006