User talk:Lycurgus/Arkiv200709-470601

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Jena Six

[edit] talk:Jena Six

Please don't split the talk page into subpages, it just makes it harder for interested editors to keep track of discussions. --William Graham talk 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me, should be easier to keep track of but did stop, cf. the "Should we Archive" § on the discussion page. Lycurgus 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
By creating sub pages, people who have watched the page are unable to see any edits on their watchlist. --William Graham talk 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, didn't think of that. Well they've already put a scary about the discussion being subject to PROD, so maybe going forward people will pick up the structuring and change thier watchlists since it's a hot Article rather than causing it to continue to bloat.Lycurgus 16:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jena 6

If you're doing an archive of the talk page please let people know. I think that some people are confused and one of your edits was reverted , perhaps because they thought it was vandalism. The page needs to be archived and organized, but you need to give folks a heads up! futurebird 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know I logged in after I saw that. Lycurgus 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Action

Sufficient editors requested that I complete the action begun, so I did. Lycurgus 12:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Ensaculin

A tag has been placed on Ensaculin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g11.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Taroaldo 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I found Ensaculin on the list of nootropics where it was the only red link. Was going to delete it but then googled it and saw that it was a real substance with interesting properties. Lycurgus 23:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.92.156 (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology of motivation

Hi, I reverted your edit to Paul Diel because the "psychology of motivation" as a school of thought has little to do with the topics currently discussed in the article motivation and because as a notable system of psychology developed in the 20th century it deserves its own article. I think it's more appropriate to redlink the subject than to link to an article that is insufficiently relevant. How did you come across the Diel article, if you don't mind my asking? Robert K S 14:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall what led me there. But agree didn't find an explanation in the article and I therefore made an evaluation based on a site run by his disciples. As for the issue, the term "psychology of motivation" seemed redundant, motivation being already (properly) a psychological topic, although I was aware that that and "introspective analysis" have a specific meaning in Diel's context. Results from referenced site did not lead me to want to pursue any further interest in Diel's work other than for French practice. If you do, suggest you stub the articles. Also agree that a concise statement of both would be of value, moreso in fact than the source phenomenon. Lycurgus 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion--have been meaning to write full articles on introspective analysis and psychology of motivation for a long time but in the meantime stubs will be useful. As for using Diel for French practice, even the French find him difficult-to-impossible to read. Robert K S 17:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Human chemistry" article

This deleted article is still visible in the Google cache. link. Tim Vickers 22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant human molecule Lycurgus 23:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
OK link. Tim Vickers 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I see, they are a pair. One implicates the other, otherwise I would still be willing to buy the not-too-virulent a psuedo-science sounding one without actually checking anything. I still think the shit and golden namespaces is a good idea. Of course you only need one from each major category for the shit space. Lycurgus 23:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I.e. one in each category of Encyclopædic fraud, e.g: en:fraud:PseudoScientificAdvertisement. 74.78.162.229 11:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You could make the proposal at the village pump. Tim Vickers 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sith

This article is being squatted by a troll. It is a perfect example of what can go wrong in a place like this. Fortunately it's not an important article. The material below e removed saying it wasn't sourced; not only was sourced by an external link which I added and which is clearly referenced, moreover it's quite a popular film whose story line is fairly well known:

[edit] Full Mythopoetic Development

By the time of the second feature of the prequel trilogy, a website giving the official backgrounders of various elements of the Star Wars myth their canonical treatment in what is called at the website the Expanded Universe databank (cf. Sources below) gave the sith order detailed background. It recounted how the Sith order was a Manichean partner to the Jedi order that had fought many battles with it in ages prior to the rise of the first Galactic Empire. Several thousand years before the battle of Yavin, the order took it's final form with exactly two members at any time, master and apprentice, both titled "Darth". The final two were Senator/Emperor Palpatine, Darth Sidious and Darth Vader, AKA Anakin Skywalker.

The Sith use negative emotions such as anger, confusion, and fear to achieve mastery of their victims and advance the Dark Side. In the Revenge of the Sith there are two scenes in which the final Sith are revealed as having turned to the dark side. The first occurs when Palpatine tells Anakin that Sith teachings can save Padme from the death he, Anakin, has foreseen in childbirth. Anakin recognizes him then as a Sith and draws his light saber. The second scene is when Darth Vader confronts Obi Wan in their duel on Mustafar and he says to Obi Wan that all the Jedi are corrupt. Obi Wan says that "only a Sith deals in absolutes" and recognizes Anakin as one and draws his light saber.

See also my POV WP §.

Lycurgus 04:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Programmers Union Comment

There seem to be two related problems with labor unions. The first is their degeneration into layers of professional bureaucracy that become in effect labor resellers and sell out their membership. The second is the failure of the unions to form effective rank and file democratic structures aligned with their needs. The gross spectacle of unions hijacked by organized crime epitomizes this problem. So a union of clerks or for that matter anything else is very definitely NOT what I meant by a union of programmers. Although bloated with a lot of dilletantes the ranks of programmers can be expected if they did form such a organization not to repeat the mistakes of other labor groupings, to not be absorbed by labor conglomerates that collaborate with their class adversaries, and to effectively govern themselves. If they didn't so organize, they wouldn't get much if any participation since this set of workers is at least as independent as the writers of stuff that doesn't have to execute. Lycurgus (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landmark Education page

Two questions: 1) Would there be a reason to recuse yourself? and 2) Would it matter if you had a copy of the study? --Pax Arcane 13:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there would be. At this point I have no idea what "Landmark Education" is supposed to be about. I will devote a reasonable amount of time, say between 4 and 8 hours max to the task; don't know what the study referred to is yet so can't comment on it's relevance at this point. This is my first time offering 3rd party service, so I imagine the first step is for both parties to agree for a 3rd party role and I won't look at anything till I'm greenlit to do so. Lycurgus (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the entirety of your edits. I'm fine with you being able to provide an outsider's opinion. I accept your statement that you have never heard of "Landmark Education," on the strengths of your edits and history. My request for WP:30 as stated is just what it is...I stated it simply. --Pax Arcane 20:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW, don't confuse this as MedCab, DR, or Arbitration. It's one editor saying something is irrelavent for inclusion and another saying it is. The agreement for both parties doesn't work like MedCab, DR, or ArbCom. --Pax Arcane 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Acknowledged; will review and post here results of preliminary impression (i.e. stated relevance issue) within 48 hours. Lycurgus (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I see it's EST related. Should say that while I do remember a comment about its supporters having been called "estholes" at the time of its intitial popularity, I do not (at this moment) have an opinion about EST or Erhard (don't recall the one I had 30 years ago which would be irrelevant anyway).
You may want to consider that this was a problem between two editors only (my old name was at the top), and when I asked for a third opinion, someone who hasn't contributed to the article chimed in after the fact, in fact, a significant amount of time after. Triplejumper and I have been editing that article for some time. I've never seen User:Vanessa (sic) before. I request that you take this into consideration when I asked for a third opinion and that time I requested it is the time in question.--Pax Arcane 00:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've done a quick review of the Article and the current state of it's talk page. I presume now the thing upon which a judgment is to be rendered is the study of which you offered to provide a copy (but which I cannot map to any point of the current text in either of the mentioned english wiki pages). So my opinion would/will be that as long as the study in question is primarily about or contains material germane to the topic of the Landmarks Education enterprise then it certainly relevant. It does not matter if it is "pro" or "con" as long as it is not slanderous. Note that any accusation, no matter how grievous cannot, in Common Law, be slander if it is true, though establishing it as a fact may be difficult. Also, only the relevance, not the quality of the material could be at issue; presumably different sides of a dispute will and should exercise value judgements about material on their side but not that of their opponents. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see the Talk page for the Landmark Education artile. User:Vassyana couldn't be neutral or unbiased, and my stated reasons are there. I will e-mail you a copy of the study if you need it. I appreciate it.--Pax Arcane 01:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
As stated, I did read the current content of the talk page you mention. Yes, if you want me to comment on the relevance of some material, send it as an attachment to juan@acm.org (though providing a link to it here would be better). I am not an admin here so if you want to take some action against User:Vassyana please see an en:wp admin. Also I will post a link here to anything you send to a copy placed on one of my servers so it can be inspected. 71.186.203.201 (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Sent. Thanks for working with me. Yours --Pax Arcane 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Obviously per my statement above I think material is relevant although it in no way refers specifically to LE. The referenced study is copyright by the British Psychological Society and it cannot remain on my public servers unless you get permission from them. For the purposes of this process I will give you a few biz days to at least begin that process and should you obtain their permission will host at current URL indefinitely. The title of the study is "Characteristics of participants in the Forum, psychotherapy clients, and control participants: A comparative study."; Ah ... I see it DOES actually reference LE, I thought it didn't, well obviously that only increases the relevance. OK, so my involvement, short of the matter of this copyright material and in further hosting of the link above is complete, pending you sending the required authorization to host the BPSs material. You have asked me not to reveal your identity, which is fine, but if you are one of the authors I need to know that. I will not divulge the exact nature of the authorization whether from the BPS or one of the authors. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
laughs...I wish I could get published again, but no...this isn't my work. I'm an ex-journalist. It's the reason why I asked for editors to help me decipher what would belong in the article, the whole reason I opened the discussion up. It's an interesting, somewhat puzzling study. I can give a "gist" of the results, but I'd rather agreement than typing the study on the page outright. Hope this helps. --Pax Arcane 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"Hope this helps" - very funny. I will remove the content at the start of the next biz day unless you proceed as directed. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
What direction are you aiming for me to take? I'm afraid I'm a bit unclear. I don't own the article and have no rights to it. That was my personal copy. --Pax Arcane 17:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you need guidance in composing material based on the reference in question? If so I can give the article a more in depth scan and give you some suggestions but that will end my involvement (mean it this time). 128.205.116.44 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I meant it the first time. This is an article in an established and presumably peer reviewed journal about the subject of the WP article in question. Its relevance is self evident. You will have to take it from there. Lycurgus (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. That's always been the plan. The source was a good read. --Pax Arcane 00:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gini Coefficient Category of the United States

Yet another reason for the ¶ above. Since at this point the matter is backed up against US government data, the next step should be more interesting than the suppression of the category on the nation state hosting wikipedia. Lycurgus (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will pose the question here: Is there any verifiable basis at all for your splitting the nations of the world into "high," "medium" and "low" Gini coefficient categories? If there is, please identify it, and I will immediately restore the ranking to the U.S. infobox. I believe there is no verifiable basis for the categories. I believe you made them up. Your response here ([1]) appears to confirm that. I stand ready to stand corrected.—DCGeist (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Leaving this here, but if you put anything else here I will delete it. I didn't make up the categorization on the map, I simply updated the map with the current US value per the 2005 US Census data, if you'd bothered to look at it's history you would have seen that. FWIW, it appears that the original author of the map used rough standard deviations as the category width with equal subdivisions which is entirely appropriate. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
As an aside (since I get the last word here) a few words about the nature of the statistic. When the value of the ∫ is vanishing, i.e. the Lorenz curve is approaching the line of perfectly equal distribution, the area under the curve is approaching zero. The complete area of the right triangle is the case of a single proxy recipient of all wealth flows for the society in question. In this sense the 0 and 1 cases are equivalent representations. This is original research.
Lycurgus (talk) 8 Rain 4705 (公元)

[edit] mensa

Your use of a common name like {{User Mensa}} for a template that, by default, says a user "was" in mensa has caused some friction (a well-meaning user attempted to replace a substed version of a different userbox saying "This user is a member of Mensa." with it, and was accused of vandalism, probably for the apparent insult). —Random832 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The box contains my mensa membership card so obviously I can use it. Have moved the box to my userspace so the page in Template space can be deleted. Lycurgus (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creation (The Sense of Being Stared At)

I guess, it's more than a stub, but slightly less than appropriately complete. The main thing that needs to be added is more detail on the design, results, and meta-analysis as conducted by the author and perhaps a corroborating check on his use of those of others. Lycurgus (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's OK, but if this article is deleted it will end my free contributions to wikimedia projects in English. Get a fucking grip on yourself with the goddamn tags. Also have added to listed drafts in my wikimedia instance linked from my user page for workout of add-ons such as templating at the next mediawiki upgrade. Lycurgus (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trot and its definition

first of all before i start right up i say that someone pointed you out in of the history of posts on Trotskyism, that being said i was reading on the definition of Trotskyism when i read; '"Trotskyite" and more recently "Trot" (the latter particularly in Britain and Canada) are used pejoratively'. after reading this i wanted to understand the origin of the more recent, Trot. being pejorative, i flagged it as a weasel word, to get to the point. you being from the Niagara region i assume you i understand you have a grasp on the use of it i guess i was just wondering how you have heard it used and by whom so i may possibly expand on this to some degree.--i am a fan of any and all contributers to wikipedia, espically the ones devoting time to categories!!--Dieselweasel (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither 'Trot' nor 'Trotskyite' are weasel words, just the opposite. In case you are not a native speaker of English, the term means words which are, e.g. politically correct, dissembling, diplomatic, etc. Additionally, in American English, and other languages and cultures, terms originally used with derision are sometimes adopted with pride by the designated group. My first exposure to the term was to hear it used derisively in reportage on British politics where its use by Tory type individuals was quoted. Trotskyites are advocates of revolutionary overthrow of the existing social order so to directly call someone one is confrontational and from some perspectives, derisive, but hardly a weasel word. Lycurgus (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, FTR, if I were to use the word in derision, or seem to have in some venue, it is as a verbal attack from the left and the right at the same time as I see (taking Chomsky's statement about any philosophy bearing a personal name being a cult in point) these groups inability to go beyond Orthodox Marxism as constituting their primary defect OTOH, OTOH I challenge these groups statements that theirs is a "science of perspective" adequate for the historical task before (the left critque) them as in my experience relatively few of them have much contact with science as such, mathematical economics, nor are they receptive to much on the philosophical plane that goes beyond said Orthodoxy. As in the case of Ayn Rand on the right, this is a criticism I also make from the right because in both cases in my opinion what is involved is a basic failure to completely evaluate current and traditional bodies of work. Marx's theories of dialectic and historical materialism aren't ends of development but rather nearly trivial principles upon which more advanced perspectives could be constructed, if one were willing to go beyond them/regard them as truisms with sequelae. Lycurgus (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks, i guess i am just disgruntled ;p--i am a fan of any and all contributers to wikipedia, espically the ones devoting time to categories!!--Dieselweasel (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, specifically in the context of WP, weasel words refers to content presented in term like "some people believe" and other formulae use to mask a lack of substance. Too much substance OTOH hand is considered original research. Lycurgus (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)