User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive02

Comments from User:Jguk will not be allowed in my talk page. Sorry, I have some minimal standards (and no fondness for Wikipedia vandals). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:05, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Deep breath

Hey Lulu,

C'mon, man... take a deep breath and chill. It seems like you and jguk are in some type of disagreement, and i'm not seeing any type of "vandalism" going on... if you want, I can mediate the situation. You two might not agree, but there's no need to fight over it. We should all be helping each other, not arguing. No worries, my friend. Linuxbeak 20:41, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ok... breath in, breath out. Not sure if I'm quite to the right Zen state, but I'll work on my Wiki nature. :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:48, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Hey, there ya go! Don't worry, everyone bumps into someone along the way. I think the best way to deal with that is just to stay cool and remember that it's not a life-or-death issue if people don't see things your way. Linuxbeak 00:05, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

David Mertz

Oh, I guess so... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Olive Branch

Ok, I know we had disagreements on the use of styles page, but I just think that we should "agree to disagree." However, I think with the comments you and I posted to stop the process from being stopped is going to help things. So, please, accept this olive branch. Zscout370 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

On the style page thinger

[Edit]

• 3 edits, 00:48 thru 05:09, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
• participants: Titanium Dragon (t) (*); Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t) (*); Jerzy (t) (*)
• general topic: styles (honorifics) in bios

(You may, like Jerzy (t) 05:09, 2005 May 7 (UTC), prefer to forgo this transclusion lk:)
{{User talk:Jerzy/On the style page thinger}}

Honourific usages

Hi Lulu, thanks for your message. You make a good point about this vote, although I did actually list alternative 3 as my second choice (I did make it clear I only listed this as it was the best of the rest). I did appreciate your comment though, thanks. Rje 12:13, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Kim Jong-il

You might find the talk page and the article rv history interesting, as a certain someone who wants universal styles seems not to want even honorifics used in this case. Whig 09:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't even need to look. Jguk has an attitude that "Styles must be used, but what they are is a mysterious thing that only I, Jguk, can decide or know." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

With Kim, only his people call him Dear Leader, so, in order to be NPOV, we should just mention it in the introduction, but at the last line. I am starting to see now what the styles issues are, and I personally think it depends on the person and the situation. Zscout370 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)ŭ

I'm glad you're seeing it Zscout370. Maybe you should have your vote reflect this understanding: Alternative 1 means we need the style for Kim. Alternative 4 is more fitting.Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:21, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

I am doing so now. I also thought the poll has closed, but I will change my statement in the Pope Benedict XVI talk page. Zscout370 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the poll closes on the 14th. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:16, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

It does Lulu. Zscout370 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The proper style which I corrected for Kim Jong-il is now simply "Chairman" according to my research, and as discussed on the relevant Talk page. Apparently, Jguk thinks he is not entitled even to that, despite the fact that it is his office, and it is how he is referred to diplomatically, and citations have been provided to back that up. I am not wanting to engage in a continuing rv war here, or anywhere, I want the issue settled and done, and I do think that Chairman Kim is not even really a style, just a simple honorific, to which he is as entitled as is Pope Benedict XVI and Queen Elizabeth II. The honorific is neutral, unlike "His Holiness" or "Her Majesty." Whig 07:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, chairman is not even an honorific, just a job title. Heck, I've held that job myself--not of the Communist Party of Democratic Socialist Republic of Korea, of course. But Chairperson of something. FWIW, I actually do have an earned honorific: "Dr. Lulu"... I considered adding it to my user page to keep with the MoS :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:28, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Master Plumber is a job title, but not typically used to prefix someone's name. Chairman Kim is how Kim Jong-il is referred to diplomatically, put the whole Dear Leader question to one side. Whig 08:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you did the right research about the non-currency of the style "Dear Leader." But Chairman is certainly a job title rather than an honorific. You're right about "Master Plumber" not being used as a prefix; but "Foreman" is, as well as "Doctor", "Professor", "Shop Steward", "Judge", or "Chief Technology Officer." Those job titles are not used all the time of course, but it's certainly no surprise to see any of them prefixed in, say, a business letter (I've held all those jobs, except judge... maybe one day). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:51, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to make only reasonable edits. Do they make a point? Yes. But they are not disruptive because the only opposition to the use of "Chairman Kim" is manifestly unreasonable, based upon a disrespectful POV, inconsistent with how other national leaders are recognized.

I have footnoted the change from "Dear Leader" in the article, as well. Whig 09:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion for the Kim article is: "Diplomatically, he is styled as Chairman, while his citizens (used?) to style him as Dear Leader." Zscout370 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with Zscout370 here. Chairman really isn't a style, but a title. The current version of the article that indicates Kim hold the positions such-and-such seems reasonable. Per Zscout370, I agree he was "formerly styled as..." rather than "formerly known as..." (but "formerly addressed as..." would be fine too).

But at least, as a diplomat, you can feel easier using Chairman than Dear Leader. Once again, I think it is the way that my fellow countrymen style people, this vote/survey/policy is really kicking my ass. Zscout370 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

However, I despair of trying to edit bios anymore, knowing Jguk will come vandalize for his agenda. I looked through his history, and it seems to involve the same behavior consistently. For example, unilateral changes to the MoS about regional spelling policy, followed by vandalism of affected pages and revert wars. And apparently some similar behavior with pages on the sport of Cricket. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:26, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

I give up on editing the styles too, but I will give comments, vote and just enforce the community consensus (once it has been reached). I tried to edit other people's vandalism in here, but the reverting eventually became an edit war. Zscout370 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Styles Survey

Personally, I think the survey went to Hell. I know Whig was trying to do his best to find out what was going on and try to solve the problem. However, I noticed the survey is now boiled down to personal attacks on both sides, confusion and perhaps, a geographic barier. My problem is that what is considered a style in many parts of Europe, we use them all of the time here in the States (Mayor, President, Senator, Governor, Judge). And, though they have lost their job eons ago, they still receieve/honored by the style until they get a higher job or death. Other than the voting changes, I will probably stay out of the dicussion, since I am lost, very lost. If nothing happens out of this, I will see if I can put things in lamen's terms. Zscout370 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Civility

Wikipedia values civility and frowns on personal attacks. If you have differences with other people, please follow the suggestions for resolving disputes. Please bear in mind that you are running the risk of being at the receiving end, though. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the context of this comment. Did Jguk sneak in some other frivolous characterization of me at some admin page? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:27, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Consensus Closure

I note that you, Titanium Dragon and I are currently preferring Alternative 4 to Alternative 3, which is part of the present cycle. I'm personally in favor of compromising for the purpose of closing consensus in our own ranks. Whig 20:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I considered changing back from my current 4>3>5>2>1 to my original vote of 3>4>5>2>1. However, that's not my genuine preference now (not that it's so far from it). I wonder if this isn't a suggestion of "tactical voting" of a sort also. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:25, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

By all means, vote according to your own preferences. My own decision to change my preference rank to 3>4 was to try to avoid an inconclusive survey result, a result I do not prefer. Fwiw, the potential for deadlock now seems to have been largely erased with recent votes. Whig 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

"Vote corralling" discussion

Apologies: I had included your name in my rant as one of the people who were discussing "tactical voting", not as one of the people who were arguing about dishonest voting. Anyway, since the whole things been archived and apparently I'm the only one who keeps bringing it up, it would probably be best if I were to drop the whole thing as well.
— Asbestos | Talk 08:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)