Slim and Will put the smackdown on LaRouche, was: SlimVirgin, back with a vengeance Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

[Cedric]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

This was at least 110% predictable. As I have said before, lovers of intrigue rarely if ever fall out of love with it. They nearly always revert back to type, even though they occasionally lie low or switch tactics. Remember the "new" Richard Nixon?

[Shalom]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

"Some tidying" can mean anything. Cla68's arbitration evidence did include some misleading edit summaries, but when you add content, the content you add should speak for itself. Meanwhile, you seem unable to give up on the whole LaRouche cluster bomb. To be brutally honest, without Wikipedia I would never have heard of the fool, and I don't especially care.

[CharlotteWebb]

To be brutally honest, without Wikipedia I would never have heard of [LaRouche]...

Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Oh yeah Hersch since you asked: I am in fact an American citizen (yes sir, so far...)

[Krimpet]

Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure.

[MBisanz]

The 15 most edited article talk pages are:

1. Talk:Main_Page 86775
2. Talk:Barack_Obama 30115
3. Talk:Sarah_Palin 23755
4. Talk:Global_warming 21823
5. Talk:George_W._Bush 21117
6. Talk:Intelligent_design 20672
7. Talk:Gaza_War 18572
8. Talk:Jesus 17841
9. Talk:Anarchism 17323
10. Talk:September_11_attacks 16194
11. Talk:Prem_Rawat 15946
12. Talk:Evolution 15219
13. Talk:Muhammad 14962
14. Talk:Homeopathy 14313
15. Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo 13985

I'm not that surprised about the main page, or Obama, Bush, Jesus, and Muhammad, but I am very surprised to see Prem Rawat (as opposed to Religion, Christianity, or Hinduism) and Homeopathy (as opposed to Health, Medicine, or Science) on the list.

[MBisanz]

It is probably also worth noting that the talk page for LaRouche is infrequently viewed at 318 times in July and 1,405 times in August compared to 4,662 times for my talk page. The talk page has only 3,492 edits, which isn't even enough to make the most edited talk page list. All of which seems on par for an article 3,071 hits a day (not even in the top 3,000 for for the site).

[written by he who wrote it]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.")

Be fair: She did add some material to the lead (details available), so the edit summary was deceptive, but she wasn't sneaking in accusations of fascism: the text was already there.

This post has been edited by written by he who wrote it:

[Cla68]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

It won't work to list a series of interviews of LaRouche with Russian or Chinese TV or newspaper journalists, who seem to give him more credibility than the media in the west. You (in the general sense) need to tie those reports into the topics that are more relevant to a general, "encyclopedic" overview of LaRouche's life and politics. If that is done, then it will be harder for anyone to justify removing the information.

[Casliber]

Some unusual topics get quite a going over - for instance, a bunch of birds named Conures or Parakeets - Conure is more specific but is an avicultural name..and the pet trade has been responsible for decline....waht's in a name?

Sun Parakeet or Conure talk page

[Casliber]

Also the Liopleurodon talk page - should the appearance of a Liopleurodon in the youtube vid Charlie the unicorn be mentioned...rather involved and lengthy argument (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[everyking]

Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure.

I disagree--the upside to edit warring is traditionally that you get vastly expanded and improved content. The two sides beat each other black and blue, but as the beatings in part take the form of research, sourcing, and expansion, the ultimate result can be very positive. If not for all the LaRouche edit warring, articles related to LaRouche would no doubt be rather few and rather pitiful.

[Shalom]

Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure.

I disagree--the upside to edit warring is traditionally that you get vastly expanded and improved content. The two sides beat each other black and blue, but as the beatings in part take the form of research, sourcing, and expansion, the ultimate result can be very positive. If not for all the LaRouche edit warring, articles related to LaRouche would no doubt be rather few and rather pitiful.

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference. I'm not espousing that perspective, but I can see why someone might think so. It's more congruous to expect proportional coverage in a centralized model, but Wikipedia's decentralized model leads to growth in odd topics. This is plain to see, writ small, in the collection of Good Articles and Featured Content.

[dtobias]

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.

Such as this one.

[Shalom]

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.

Such as this one.

Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.")

Be fair: She did add some material to the lead (details available), so the edit summary was deceptive, but she wasn't sneaking in accusations of fascism: the text was already there.

No, she was sneaking in the (non-notable) guy; his accusations of fascism come later in the article.

[Moulton]

Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France.

Some enterprising entrepreneur (hello Greg) should start a company in Brittany to manufacture and sell reproductions of medieval armaments. The company, of course, would be named Brittany Spears.

[Lar]

Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France.

Some enterprising entrepreneur (hello Greg) should start a company in Brittany to manufacture and sell reproductions of medieval armaments. The company, of course, would be named Brittany Spears.

mod +1 funny

[CharlotteWebb]

It is probably also worth noting that the talk page for LaRouche is infrequently viewed at 318 times in July and 1,405 times in August compared to 4,662 times for my talk page. The talk page has only 3,492 edits, which isn't even enough to make the most edited talk page list. All of which seems on par for an article 3,071 hits a day (not even in the top 3,000 for for the site).

Only 127 for my talk page. Makes me feel so ronery.

Anyway that's just the main biography article. I don't suppose you could get a total figure for all articles/talk-pages related to LaRouche and the LaRouche "movement"?

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.

Yeah it's almost as if we need to actively recruit a bunch of boring, normal people to work on those articles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[thekohser]

Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France.

Some enterprising entrepreneur (hello Greg) should start a company in Brittany to manufacture and sell reproductions of medieval armaments. The company, of course, would be named Brittany Spears.

I was already taking out a "doing business as" name registration in Nantes, but we were planning to grow and sell asparagus, not pole weapons.

Speaking of which, do the Wikipedians who create maps go to some sort of clinic or school for Unhelpful Cartography, or something?

This post has been edited by thekohser: