Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The behaviour of Lulu is seriously undermining the credibility of this debate. Instead of letting the debate reach a conclusion he has repeatedly unilaterally attempted to highjack Pope Benedict XVI and remove the style. Whig, who is co-ordinating this process here, has already indicated on that talk page that things should be left as they are until we decide on a new policy here. But alone Lulu has ignored everyone and repeatedly tried to enforce his policy, even though it is contrary to the current one, on the page. In doing so Lulu is showing complete contempt for everyone else's work here.

Now he has begun to censor other people's opinions here by deleting a comment by Proteus that he disagreed with.

Unless Lulu stops this vandalism, many of the users here will leave the vote here altogether, meaning that there will be no consensus on any change in policy. Any more vandalism by him will be treated as such, reported as vandalism and a request made that the appropriate action be taken against him. FearÉIREANN 00:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• It appears that an edit by me removed a comment by Proteus. It was absolutely not my intention to remove any comment. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:36, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

To touch on Jtdirl's point, I personally think with the debate at Benedict XVI's article spawned this recent debate. I have set up an archive section in the Benedict XVI talk page that is just talk about his style. Granted, it took a while to find the appropriate style, but once it was settled, the majority of the people who are watching the page agree with the style. Lulu, who watches and debates about the page along with myself and Jtdirl, does not like for the style to be used (for reasons that might be personal or not). Though we can ask for Lulu to keep the style in place until the debate is over (which Whig agreed (see Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI#Holiness)), and if he does not, we will just revert. If things get truely worse, then I believe a RfC could be in order. Zscout370 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've confirmed the inappropriate deletion of a discussion comment by Lulu. The comment has been reinstated and I've responded to it above. I want to make very clear that this sort of tampering is absolutely improper, and if Lulu does it again I will be inclined to seek removal of his right to post any further edits to this discussion. Whig 02:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Whig. FearÉIREANN 03:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Accidental deletions

It appears from this difference entry that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters may have inadvertently deleted the comment by Proteus while he was attempting to add a signature to a previous comment of his own. Whig 08:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I do want to clarify that FearÉIREANN was incorrect in stating: "In the edit it isn't that he was doing something else and inadvertently removed the comment. It was the only thing he touched in that edit." He did add a signature to his comment in the same edit, and I'm inclined to agree the deletion may have been accidental. Whig 08:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

If that is the case then I apologise. I could not find any other change at the time of the deletion so I presumed it meant a deliberate deletion. But the central point regarding Lulu's behaviour on the Benedict XVI page remains valid, and I note he issued no apology for that. FearÉIREANN 08:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that issue is extraneous to this survey, however. Whig 08:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl's claim about my edits to the B16 page are incorrect, of course. Quite a number of people have reverted the POV style, pending this vote. It is fewer people who keep putting the POV back in to that page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:36, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

It appears from this difference entry that Jguk may have inadvertently deleted the vote by Eloquence while he was attempting to add a comment. The vote has been reinstated. Editors, please keep an eye out for this kind of thing and revert if and when you see it. Whig 19:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Lulu is wrong - I have vandalised nothing. The reason there have been so many accidental deletions recently (on other pages as well as this) is because the caches have been updating very slowly in the past few days. It's technological cock-ups not anyone's malice - Some users would be better off assuming good faith! jguk 11:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Please leave off the personal attacks. Not only has your comment nothing to do with this page, it is also misguided. Whig added a footnote to the Pope Benedict XVI page (ie not the talk page but the article itself) advertising this survey. I removed that footnote as it was a self-reference, as noted in the edit summary. That's not vandalism, that's keeping WP encyclopaedic, jguk 18:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to assume good faith on your part, jguk, if so many editors had not in the past accused you of editing in bad faith, and if you hadn't unilaterally added styles to the biography page and said that all biographies should be prefaced with them. Titanium Dragon 23:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)