User talk:Baccyak4H

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Your edit to the Mandelbrot article 2 Opus Dei 3 Harmonic series 4 Opus Dei RFC 4.1 Bullet points or prose 5 Pope Article

[edit] Your edit to the Mandelbrot article

Hello. You added a quote to the Mandelbrot set article with a {{fact}} template. That template is intended to mark existing material in an article for deletion. You see an unverified fact, and mark it, so that the person who added it has some time to come up with an explanation on the talk page, or add a citation on the article page. Since it is for material that will be deleted if its original author cannot support it, it is inappropriate to tag your own edits with it. If you cannot verify your own facts, you should not add them to an article.

Also, Welcome to Wikipedia! - Rainwarrior 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei

Baccyak-- happy to hear you'll be working on the Opus Dei page. If you haven't found it, allow me to point you to my proposed rewrite of the page User:Alecmconroy/Opus Dei. It _might_ be sort of what you're describing-- by and large, it has the same content as the current page, but has been reorganized with an eye to improving the tone of the article. I've been trying to get it to replace the current page (in whole or in part), but haven't met with much success. One of these days, maybe I'll find the time to do a massive comment-solicitation and/or go to Arbitration (assuming of course that the page doesn't get fixed first.

Anyway, I hope you like my version of things and maybe it'll make your life easier. Welcome to the Opus Dei article. --Alecmconroy 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Alec, thank you for the welcome. After a fast but complete read, I do think your Opus Dei article version is a significant improvement, and your perspective is indeed close to what I was envisioning. Let's take subsequent discussion to the article's main Talk page, and I may chime in on the Talk page of your version as I see fit; I did see a couple of improvement potentials, but I do not want to reinvent the wheel, only perfect it.  ;-) Thanks for your efforts there. Baccyak4H 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I too can see a lot of room for improvement in the proposed rewrite, but I figured if I tried to make too many changes at once-- changing the tone AND the content, then it might never get it adopted. Also-- if you have any suggestions for how to get the revision approved, short of going to ArbCom, I'd love to hear it. This whole Opus Dei article has been a somewhat frustrating experience, but I'd hate for all the time I've put into it come to nothing. --Alecmconroy 01:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harmonic series

Hi there Baccyak4H. I edited your contribution to harmonic series, stating that the first two series were equal. You are correct in saying that the second series consists of powers of two, but the indices of these powers are not integral for most values of 'k', as I think you intended. Here's why the first two series are equal:

Krasnay 20:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this to my talk page rather than just reverting ad nauseum.

However, I stand by my original derivation. (Actually, it wasn't mine; I just cleaned up what was already there and made the markup look nice (IMO!).)

Your proposed second equality is incorrect (the first and third are OK). Simply put, the returned value of the ceiling function is always an integer. Indeed, the function is defined to return the smallest integer not less than its argument. So, in the second expression, the exponent

always returns an integer. Thus the summand of the second expression is

Your second equality, which I dispute, asserts that (ignoring the common reciprocation for a moment), for any integer k from 1 to , that (from the third expression) k itself equals (from the second expression)

.

but that is simply impossible for k = 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, etc. (that is, not 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc.), since those integers are not integral powers of 2.

Put another way, the second equality holds only for k which are integral powers of 2. For all other k, the summand of the third expression is greater than that of the second expression.

Baccyak4H 02:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I apologise. I did not spot the '\lceil \rceil' which makes the indices integral. I gather it means 'least integer not less than'? Again, I am sorry. Krasnay 08:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. All in good faith. And I will be the first to admit that sometimes math markup in LaTeX doesn't work too great in a browser window. Carry on!

"I gather it means 'least integer not less than'? "

That is correct. Wonder if it has a page here, hmm...

Baccyak4H 02:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei RFC

After lots of NPOV problems, I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. AS you know, we have a lot of people who are single purpose accounts whose only edits are to Opus Dei related sites, and it would appear they are promoting Opus Dei on wikipedia. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 09:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, with details added on your talk page. Baccyak4H (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bac-- thanks so much for the comment! Yes, I wish I could have done the process in a better way. So far the only people to criticize the "process" on the talk page have been the single-purpose-account types-- the ones where you look at their contributions page and everyone single edit is something Opus Dei or Catholicism related. That said, I have to admit a certain uneasiness with the whole process-- it was bit more unilateral than I like to be, but I'm not sure what would have been better and still gotten the job done.

I'm really glad the RFC responses have been so overwhelmingly favorable. The hard part, of course, will come now, as the same editors who tried to delete the rewrite outright move to reinsert their POV into the article. So-- keep a close watch out.

Also, way back when, you mentioned some things you thought could be improved with the rewrite if I ever got it up-- looks like it's up so.. How do we turn it into being ready for FAC? :) --Alecmconroy 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The single purpose users can be useful as they often (but not always) know a lot about the subject — but that in no way trumps their need to adhere to WP policy. If anything, it increases that responsibility.

My suggested changes were minor; I recall seeing maybe three and probably four when reading it a couple months back. The only one which jumped out at me this time was quoting "cult" in the section title (and maybe elsewhere). I have the opinion that putting a real word in quotes sends the subtle message (read: POV) that the usage in that particular context is not really credible. Clearly the word is from a POV, but if other language in the phrase ("allegations", "accusations", "claims", etc) make the POV status clear, then quoting the word gives the impression that its so POV as to be unreliable. I can imagine reading aloud the phrase "allegations of 'cult' status" with a large pause before and after "cult", and a raising of the eyebrow and wink wink of the eye...what is that message? But I would rather not make any subtle changes as that until the bigger issues are resolved. Baccyak4H (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

---

One more issue which is bigger (though still small given the dust hasn't settled yet). The last paragraph regarding the presence of controversy being equated to a sign of contradiction and thus itself be "support" should probably be moved. The content is good and belongs somewhere, but as a "rebuttal to criticism" it comes a little too close to being a circular argument for my comfort.

Full disclaimer: I'll be watching your user pages now (in addition to OD). Baccyak4H (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't object to the removal of quotes around cult in the section title "'cult' allegation". I see your point. The "sign of contrition" is definitely a weird argument. Back in May, one of my very first suggestions was to cut it, because it's kinda far-fetched and circular. But Thomas S. Major and some of the other OD folks helped me out a lot on that, recommended some good books, and I've learned a lot. Amazingly, while the argument may seem odd or circular to a lot of readers, it really is one of the major arguments made, with a shockingly long history to it. While you or I might find it strange, it really is something OD uses when it responds to criticism, and I kinda got to the point where I felt it wasn't really up to me to judge the "validity" or "persuasiveness" or "soundness" of that response to crticism-- it was just up to me to report it.

On a slightly different note-- do you think the NPOV dispute tag needs to be up? I put it up myself because I just assumed that people would accuse the new page of violating NPOV. But I realize no one has actually accused the rewrite of violating NPOV. now, with 8 outside comments, unanimous in support, I'm wondering if there really is a NPOV dispute ongoing or not, although I of course don't want to be the one to make that call. --Alecmconroy 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re sign of contradiction rebuttal, if you know more about the history of the sign of contradiction argument and don't object to it being a rebuttal to criticism, I will defer to that. Possible compromise: what about moving the paragraph itself elsewhere and then a very brief (one sentence) summary of it in the rebuttal section? I would request this be for discussion only at this point; I am only for cleaning up the minor points of the article (like you and I have been doing today) without getting into any futher significant content or organization issues, as the resolution of the current conflict may consist on reverting to the old version anyway. For purposes of the resolution, it seems to me best to freeze the current content as much as possible. Although if one reads the tea leaves on the current Talk page, one has to like the new version's chances.

Re NPOV, it seems to me the dispute is not about the content of the article and its purported POV but with the procedures followed in making your changes. So the NPOV dispute tag does not seem entirely appropriate. However, as the article's current state is contentious, I have no desire to remove the tag myself. But if you or someone else did, I would not revert it back. Baccyak4H (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey-- I'm sorry if I come down a bit hard on Lafem. The thing to understand is-- when you look at Lafem and some of the other people's contributions, it seems pretty clear that they're not just good-faith editors who are genuinely confused about Wikipedia policies like Verifiability-- they're Opus Dei members/supporters who have come to Wikipedia exclusively to promote their own religious views. I spent several months discussing with them, ever-increasingly frustrated that I couldn't help them understand why we "Christians are called to holiness" isn't a valid sentence, before I figured that out and started looking closely at the edit histories. Lafem, for example-- of his 700 or so edits, all or practically all are on Opus Dei or closely related subjects. His very first edit was to an Opus Dei talk page, most of his edits since have exhibited a similar pattern. He doesn't get WP:V because he's not trying to write an encyclopedia, he's trying to write a brochure/soapbox.

Then add in that the OD members also have a history of sock/meat puppetry-- when the old Opus Dei came up for FAC, there were several users that showed up to use their first edit to vote for the article and an admission of puppetry [1][2] . On the article, there are probably a dozen or so instances I could point to of people showing up, first edit to opus dei, every edit to opus dei. Of course, I don't think there organized 'campaign' or anything-- but although it took me six months to figure out, it's clear to me not that the Opus Dei article is being visited by relatively large numbers of people whose only goal in coming here is to proselytize. And then later, I found out that two admins had reach the exact same conclusion way back in Sept '05[3], months before my first edit.

So, anyway, that's my two cents. I totally don't mean to be so terse with Lafem et al, but I'm beyond the point where I see their comments as a sincere attempt to create an unbiased article. And yes, I should quote myself WP:AGF for saying that, because it's one of the most important principles we have, but to my credit, I did _rigidly_ adhere to it for six full months of a content dispute, which has to be some kind record. :)

Anyway, my terseness was towards them, not towards you-- thank you so much for helping out. --Alecmconroy 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No problems whatsoever. I am not in a position to confirm or deny agreement with your speculations of (continued) bad faith. I merely believe (perhaps wrongly) that vandalism is a greater evil than even POV-pushing. And certainly worse than wikilawyering. I have no objection to terseness or lack thereof if it's appropriate to make the point. My only objection was with the vandalism label. I would call a wholesale reversion blatant wikilawyering and (for that and other reasons) something I would strongly object to. And I have tried to make my objections clear, as well as propose constructive alternatives (which I'm sure you realize full well). And despite that one objection, I commend your civility. Your interaction with Dominick (sp?) for example, a critic of critical sources, was laudable.

In some sense, I am still scratching my head over all this. I have done many many edits on Catholicism-related topics (including a reorg much in the spirit of yours, if not so thorough, of the Benedict XVI article, which was lauded by some and disparaged by none), and have almost always made edits that could be described as coming from the apologist position. Now this...I guess I must be doing something right. Baccyak4H (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear ya! That's the sad irony of all this. The Opus Dei members are convinced I'm some atheistic crusader, out to destroy all that is christian. I wish they'd look at my edit history closer! It's so far off it's not even funny. I'm a huge opponent of the Wikipedia:Scientific point of view proposal. I don't even believe even one of the criticisms of Opus Dei-- I only looked up the Opus Dei article in the first place because I was astounded by the beauty of the idea that my ordinary life and my ordinary work is a also a valid path to holiness, in the same way that a priest's or a monk's life is.

So yeah, I'm very sympathetic to Dominick when he is hesistant about the critics-- I'm hesistant about them too, but if we don't mention those criticisms in a direct and upfront fashion, we just create a whitewash that makes everybody look worse-- Wikipedia, Opus Dei, and in some ways, the Church as a whole. Every time I would look at the old article, I would cringe at how many readers must have come to it to learn whether the Da Vinci Code conspiracy theory nonsense was true, only to walk away CONVINCED that it was true because the nefarious Octopus Dei was so powerful it could even control Wikipedia articles. All hogwash, of course-- just few over-zealous pov-pushers, but I know that Da Vinci Code readers coming to Wikipedia and seeing that article-- so obviously a OD brochure and so devoid of any hint of criticism-- those people didn't see the work of a just a few pov-pushers-- I just know they saw some evil conspiracy at work. The more the OD members try to exert a rigid control over the article content, the more they just perpetuate the bad stereotypes that OD-- a beautiful organization that makes thousands of people happy, is really a nefarious, shadowy, secretive conspiracy theorist's dream. It just hurts everyone.

I haven't had any luck understanding the OD members. If they will just let me, I'll give them an FAC and keep working until I get it, and one day, everyone goign to the frontpage of wikipedia can see "Opus Dei" pop up as the Featured Article of the Day, and one day of that would be better advertising than ten years of the old brochure-style article. But, so far, that argument hasn't really persuaded anyone.

Anyway-- thanks for listening and thanks for helping out! --Alecmconroy 19:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullet points or prose

So, Lostcaesar has suggested we convert the bullet point to prose paragraphs. On the one hand, the bullet points allow the article to be a little more NPOV-- I wanted to keep the criticism very brief, and the bullet points allowed us to retain that extreme brevity but still be NPOVed balanced against a rebuttal section that was 3-4 times as long. On the other hand, we don't use bullet points elsewhere in the article, so perhaps we shouldn't here either, but should just create a longer prose form of the criticism. What do you think?

He's worked on a replacement controversy section here. As of this moment, it's basically just the sentences with the bullet points taken out. I think it sounds a little schiziophreni (though he may have fixed that). Do you think bullet points are acceptable, or should me replace them with a longer prose section? --Alecmconroy 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that just removing the bullets will hurt readability in general. However, I do have a minor concern with POV when critical points are in such a list—they can be seen to give too much emphasis (kind of opposite to the quoting a word issue) to the points due to visual cues. Someone will surely point out Wikipolicy on what to do, but all things being equal (which they never are), if a paragraph can achieve the same readability as the bullets, I would prefer the paragraph, although to answer your direct question, the bullets would be acceptable (say if policy dictates). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback-- it seems your a pretty good barometer of consensus. :). I think you read my mind on the bullets issue-- I liked them because we could be brief in our criticism which I knew the OD members would like, but at the same time, it makes me ask the question "how come the criticism section got bullets when the support section didn't get any?" So, yeah, we've gone to a prose version, although I expect this will create calls that the criticism section should be briefer.

Thank you so much for helping out before by lending your eyes to Opus Dei. This is an issue that attracts lots of passionate people on all sides, so true outsider eyeballs are greatly prized by all. :)

Here's the latest on Talk:Opus Dei. One issue is on whether it's acceptable to have section entitled "Criticism and 'cult' allegations". It's undisputed that notable cult allegations are being made and are they are the #1 criticism of the organization. However, one school of thought holds that referring to the "cult allegations" in the section titles is so prejudicial that we shouldn't cut it from the header. I say that if the allegations are notable enough to have section, they're notable enough to have a title that reflects their mention-- but there are some good editors who have made points in opposition.

A second question going on is whether the article complies with NPOV. Are the "criticisms" and the "support" section 'balanced', or are we giving undue weight to one side or the other. I think we're doing pretty good on that at the moment, but there are a lot of different ideas all over the spectrum on what those sections should look like, so anything you can do to help us strike the right balance and get to FAC would be much appreciated!

Thanks for all your advice and help. --Alecmconroy 20:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. For the record, the use in the section heading would certainly be plausible if it described everything or nearly so everything in that section, which I would say is the case. But even so, the word is in some sense redundant; "Criticism" or any fair synonym is all that's required. If someone objects, even solely on the grounds that you mention, I have a hard time objecting to that. But if consensus deems keep, so be it; there are bigger fish to fry. I'll get over there to look more in a bit, esp NPOV issues. Maybe by then things will really be refined. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Article

I see you reverted a change I made about Marxism back in August (See my contributions for the diff). The source is in one of the links referenced by the section. Before I put it back, I would like to have your thoughts on why the location of the change is bad. It was a change related to relativism -"Marxism could lead people to relativism". Eiler7 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me which Pope article, or is it a Pope section in Marxism? I'd be happy then to clarify. But if it was a Pope article, and based on your description of the context, my first thought is that I thought the info was simply not relevant enough (too detailed). But I reserve the right to change my explanation when I see exactly the edit made [smile]. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it. It sounded like that reference to relativism was really a secondary comment on a (much older) discourse on Marxism. So 1) it really would not be that notable a source for Ratzinger's opinions on relativism proper (there are a plethora of more recent sources where relativism is the main topic, heck read his new book ;-); 2) it actually could be read to suggest he supports Marxism, which is either plain wrong or contextually misleading. Since it is a weak source for the point of that section, and since it has other problems, the article reads better without that info there than with it there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I have looked at the web page and found nothing to suggest the Pope supports Marxism. He does say "For the moment, we cannot be but perplexed: The failure of the only scientifically based system...". I must say I found your comment above a bit vague. The article certainly seems to me to be improved by notable facts about the 1990 address. Given that my change is supported by the reference and I see no other objections to it, I plan to restore the remark. I made no observation that the Pope currently supports Marxism (see the diff). Please can you think about this further and let me know (with more specifics) if you have further objections. For example, if his new book is relevant to the point about Marxism, please can you justify your view with quotes from the book.Eiler7 10:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)