User talk:Lexor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikipedia
This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lexor.

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Contents

[edit] Moved Talk threads

[edit] Archived threads

  1. /Archive 2003
  2. /Archive Jan-Mar 2004
  3. /Archive Apr 2004-Jul 2005


[edit] Group behaviour self-optimisation system creates soccer players specializations

Dear Lexor,

Maybe You can help me with starting/finding the source of the research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Artificial_life#Group_behaviour_self-optimisation_system_creates_soccer_players_specializations


Or maybe You know anyone from the scientific AI community who could be aware with the experiment I described in the provided link?

[edit] Intelligence

How do you know that "most common definitions [of intelligence]] include "the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn""? That quote is from Wikipedia's article on intelligence, not from a nebulous "most definitions." Other definitions may well differ, but I chose to use that one. You have now changed a correct statement to an unverifiable and possibly wrong one. Since you have created this problem I expect you to solve it. Adam 12:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

OK Adam, feel free to revert it if you don't like it. No need to lecture. Lexor|Talk 12:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
It's a fair point, however, so I fixed it now. Lexor|Talk 13:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina/New Orleans article

Thanks for contributing to the article, but please respect the Inuse tag — it's the section I'm in the process of condensing and cohereifying (I swear that's a real world, really), and it's difficult to do so when somebody's editing it at the same time. I should be done within an hour, at which point I'll remove the tag. Deadsalmon 11:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, but somebody had added an entire section specifically on the New Orleans to the main Hurricane Katrina article, that needed moving swiftly else it would be expanded on. They are clearly isolated subsections, so should be easy to spot "Summary" and "Declaration of "state of emergency" versus "martial law"". I don't plan any more moving to that article. Lexor|Talk 11:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Didn't notice that; thanks for doing so. Deadsalmon 11:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Nice cleanup, by the way. It certainly needed some "cohereify" (I often use "sectionify" and "proseify" articles, so cohereify is fine by me!) Lexor|Talk 17:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Katrina

Ah, can you explain what happened here? Specifically the top diff? Thanks for clearing up the bottom diff, I miss merged across an edit conflict. --24.165.233.150 17:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody must have inserted this text during that edit conflict resolution. Stuff happens like that sometimes. Edits can get out of order a bit with database servers which have to sync with the master servers if they receive requests almost simultaneously, or something like that, I think. Lexor|Talk 17:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yea, thats what I thought... Just wanted to make sure. :) --24.165.233.150 17:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit work you've put in lately — having done some myself, I know it's a hard thing to take on. Deadsalmon 18:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The hardest thing is having to constantly filter changes in Hurricane Katrina down into the subarticles and keep the main article sections nice self-contained summaries. What part of "Main article:" do people not understand? Lexor|Talk 07:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] re: cctld

I pondered this question a while ago...

Either way is OK as I dont currently have time to write a bot to uncook the cctld template. ¢ NevilleDNZ 10:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC) ¢

[edit] Template:Genomics-footer

Hi! I came across Bioinformatics and found the footer you created. Technically speaking, though, glycomics and proteomics are really genomics fields. Would you mind if I (or you) changed the template and put those under "Similar fields:..." or something? - Mgm|(talk) 18:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metrication is FAC

Hello, because of your interest in science articles, I thought you might like to know that the article on Metrication is a featured article candidate, please vote here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metrication. Thanks Seabhcán 13:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed-wing aircraft/temp

Oops! Missed that. Cat tags did not even occur to me at all after spending hours wading thru the bad Portugese translation I got from babelfish. Next time hopefully I will remember... Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] could you help?

Hi, could you look at my comment here [1]? Might you be one of the people who could respond to my point by adding accurate information to the "gene" article? Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request For Protection Until Dispute Resolved

Hi, i want to know if its possible to protect the Gothic Metal article. A while back i performed a revision of the page after a near 2 month dispute on the articles contents. After intense discussion and several revisions of the talk page on the since deleted temp article, one of the users has proceeded to start vandalising pages ive edited. This user is DanteInferno. This user was involved in the debate in opposition to the revision i wished to make, which was made due to consensus being reached on the revision and the argument being abandonded against it being posted. Since the users return he has demanded that i am vandalising pages, and has claimed me of using sock puppets to make edits to pages, and has claimed several users dislike me and refuse to work with me. Both of these claims are unsourced. Dante also seems to exhibit Meglomanical Point of View, reverting any edits made to pages listed on his user page, on the basis he 'owns' the articles. I do not know clearly how to deal with this user, and i have posted this message to several admins as i wish to ask advice from several admins i have had no previous contact with, as i do not wish to seem biased. I hope that the page can be protected against this vandalism, as it is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, which along with the users other actions against me, is in violationg of several Wikipedia policys. Sorry for having to seek help this way, but i am at a loss at the best way to handle this users personal vendetta against me. Leyasu 17:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source of image

Image:Gene-duplication.png is a high quality drawing, and I would like to transfer it to commons. The link to the source is dead, however - it seems they moved the image. Do you possibly remember where on the site you found it? I have tried to find it on the web site, but I have not succeeded. Of course they could have removed it altogether, in which case I guess I'll transfer it to Commons with the available info. // Habj 02:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I was too quick, sorry! It must have been here, right? [2] It seems they removed the entry. // Habj 02:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost (TV series) Peer Review

Thank you for you suggestions and revisions to the Lost article(s); I have a sense that the editors are particularly enthusiastic about making any improvements that will lead to the article getting closer to "featured" quality. So any additional ideas you might have would be warmly welcomed. Regards,—LeFlyman 07:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute myself, I think Lost is a great series, but I way am pressed for time now (watching Lost is about my only regular media distraction). I originally went looking for background info on the production of Lost, where it was shot etc. (I know that all of it is on Oahu and they do a great job of faking it to look like other locations), thinking that this is the kind of material that Wikipedia normally excels at, and I was sort of disappointed that there was none. I did some web searching for info, but as you found, there is really not very much on the web. People seem excessively focused on the story (understandably), but having solid production information has the potential to be more encyclopedic and make the article more solid and less of a "fan-site" with random speculation (which would be much more like Original Research).
I rented the Lost Chronicles, but it would be good if some fan had time to extract some nuggets from the commentaries on the DVDs for the actual episodes. I used to be a regular contributor, but only login to my account every other week or so these days. I'm mainly a reader these days and don't actually login, I only edit when I see something I can do quickly. Hopefully this will change and I can return to being a more active contributor. --Lexor|Talk 07:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biology Portal

I see that you at one point helped to maintain the Biology portal. I was just wondering if you'd consider helping to maintain it again. Thanks a lot. --Cyde Weys 21:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] neuro cybernetics

Hi, i saw this in the diff history: "Lexor ({{merge}} with computational neuroscience (neurocybernetics gets 3700 hits vs 140,000 for "computational neuroscience"))"

computational neuroscience is ultimately one of the fields that will have to be matured and progressed far enough to further advances in terms of applications of neuro cybernetics but is essentially something completely different than neuro cybernetics. They all clearly are subject to neurology though and as such could be seen as subgroups or branches of this discipline!

Also it is usually referred to as neuro cybernetics or bio cybernetics ( i dunno if there really is a difference; at first guess i would say the first is more microscopic and not necessarily restricted to living / macroscopic organisms, neither would be the latter but it implies a certain tedency towards the application in higher organisms). When doing research search always for both as both are essentially underlying the same fundamentals. User:Slicky

Simply put, "neuro[ ]cybernetics" is simply not well established in the literature as a separate field to warrant a separate entry in Wikipedia. It's a name that is used by some more as a buzzword. However I agree with you that perhaps it would be better merged to the main article on cybernetics itself and discussed within that article. Also, please don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. Thanks. Lexor|Talk 14:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You may be interested

Hi Lexor! You may be interested in having a look at the WikiProject for Preclinical Medicine. Thanks! -- Serephine / talk - 02:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Infobox Journal

Please take a look at a problem I have put on this talk page. Thanks. --Bduke 02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Electronic Music

Hello, I've noticed that you are the first editor of the Electronic music template. Modern dance music and its styles and substyles are "THE electronic music" , according to that template. May I ask you to quote references on this matter? I can realize that searching on the web any info on electronic music, still some universities' webpages can be found among other results. None mention modern dance music as a subgenre of electronic music. The term "Electronic art music" is very recent, and still is not accepted everywhere.

In other words, electronic-music-as-a-style is one of the experimental genres of modern music. The use of electronics as-a-playing-technique is very common in modern dance music, and actually there is no acoustic modern dance music, that I am aware of.

So, why there is confusion between styles and techniques? Between the mean and the message? Could we change that template and others that are similar? Brian Wilson 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tnavbar

Thanks for your printing related modifications to Tnavbar. :-) Netscott 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] do you have some extra time?

I have done some work on Evolutionary developmental biology but I think it needs a lot more work and I have reached the limits of my competence. I think you were asn early contributor and have actually already contributed a lot to the article. I am wondering if you would look it over and see if you have more to add. The May 11 issue of the New York Review of Books has an essay by Israel Rosenfeld and Edward Ziff on evo-devo, reviewing three books: From DNA to Diversity, Endless Forms and The Plausibility of Life. Are you familiar with any of these or other works by their authors (Sean B. Carroll, Jennifer K. Grenier, Scott D. Weatherbee, John Gerhart or Marc Kirschner)? Roland Deschain has done some good work on the article too, but it still seems woefully underdeveloped for such an important new field in evolutionary science. I´d appreciate it if you would look over it. Or perhaps you know other wikipedians who might be able to pitch in. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Opiniion On Article Merge Requested - Priority: Low

Should knockout mouse be merged into and become a section of gene knockout? Answer here --Username132 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia categorization

Hello, you created this category. Can you add a short descritpion explaining the aim of this category ? Thank you. 16@r 11:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, that was a while ago! Done. Lexor|Talk 12:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 02:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/x/User_talk%7ELexor_6dd0.html"