User talk:Gogobera/Archive 1

Please, if I've started a conversation on your talk page, continue the discussion on your talk page. I will watch your page to see when you respond. If, on the other hand, you start a conversation here, I will reply here. This practice keeps conversations together, making it easier for myself and others to read it easilly.

Ram Dass catagories
Hi. Regarding your questions on my edits to the Ram Dass category listings: As for Category:Hindu religious figures, I did not intend to remove that tag but rather place it in alpabetical order. Apparently, I forgot to paste after cutting. I've corrected that error and re-inserted the category. As for Category:Spiritual writers, I've been told by other Wikipedians that "the more specific the category the better" and I personally find it redundant to add a general category when a more specific one can be applied. However, this is no by means a point of major contentiousness. So if you would like to re-insert that category, I will not remove it. In any case, thanks for the helpful feedback.--AllbeFree 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:User Lambda Chi Alpha
Good catch on using member instead of Brother ... I wasn't thinking when I created that Jrssr5 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Help
You said you could get a hold of a copy of the 1991 edition of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. I know that my fraternity was mentioned in the 1949 Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, under the article of Phi Iota Alpha. My fraternity is Phi Sigma Alpha from Puerto Rico which shares its origins with Phi Iota, what I would like to know is if Phi Sigma Alpha is still mentioned in the recent editions.

thanks for any help you can give me Eljohnson15 18:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be back on campus in the fall, sorry for the really delayed response. I can get the book, then, if you'd like.&#8201;—&#8201;gogobera (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks in advance Eljohnson15 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, hope you are well, I was wondering if you hae has the chance to get a look around of what I mentiones, thanks. El Grande Johnson (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Spell Check
Thanks for the spell check, I can't believe that I missed so many. I'm going to try to go to the library and use Baird's some time in the next month. I don't know when I'll be able to get at my History of LCA but I will also add some content from that. Thanks again.Airpear 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Carotene
Sorry for jumping on your change. Vitamin A has had a lot of creative contributions, so I didn't realize that your edit was legit. Obviously it is good to get more references in the article. EdJohnston 04:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

True, and I could've sourced it immediately (just a quick googling did the job). I wonder though, if there's a better (nih.gov, maybe?) reference? I'll poke around later, maybe.&#8201;—&#8201;gogobera (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

48th or 50th ed.
Any info that I added to the page and cited to is from the 50th ed. of the paed. I know that there was some older info from the 48th ed. and I went back and corrected those. I'm going to revert the changes to my last update, but I'm going to wait until tomorrow so that you can discuss it.Airpear 13:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and found the proper 50th ed. references, and I've updated the references to link to the PDF. I was able to find citations for everything, thankfully, but unfortunately, I've found two sets of numbers regarding the TKN merger. I cited both.


 * Also, I put quotations around some of the text that was quoted verbatim. I probably didn't get all of it, since now most of the page comes directly out of one of LCA's publications. Wording like "our founders/members/image/etc" to describe LCA's founders/etc is really bad. I'd really recomend stripping it entirely before entering the text with a NPOV mindset. Keep in mind the project's rule: "Wikipedia is not a rush brochure." A lot of the information about things like the AM program and fraternity education initiative are close to being "rush brochure"-esq. I know I was the one who added the Spasyk quotation, and I think that LCA's actions are historically notable in regards to hazing/pledging/etc. On the other hand, since every IFC group condemns hazing these days, I think that "...remains a leader in the fight..." is a bit POV. Every group is putting out PR, but unless there's actual published research (like if someone has found that LCA has 20% fewer hazing incedents than the next leading group, or something), phrases like that are fairly POV. If there is research, of course, stating it plainly would be a more powerful option anyway. Well, those are my thoughts for now. Keep up the good work!&#8201;—&#8201;gogobera (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that we need some work on POV and "de-rushifying" the article. Baird's is a great source and I hope that I'll have some time in the next few weeks to go to the library.  Until then we should continue to update the ciations that we have and begin to rewrite the sections.Airpear 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Baird's is very dated. At least, though, it carries a more neutral, encyclopædic tone. About the rest, I wholeheartedly agree. I may try to do a large scale rewrite on a subpage of my userspace. I'm not sure how that works yet, though. Anyway, I think we're the only two editors actively involved on that page, at the moment. So, let's keep in touch.&#8201;—&#8201;gogobera (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know Baird's is the only "neutral" text in the greek world. I have a copy of History of Lambda Chi, but it is packed at the moment. I was hoping that jasonpierce would get back involved, but I haven't seen him around lately.  I think that the C&C might also be a useful source, or if we could get one an old expositor, but those things are like the holy grail. Airpear 13:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC) EM1843

Start Class
I believe the Lambda Chi article is at least a B class article. How do we go about raising our ranking. I don't know if it is appropriate for us to just change it or if we need to be reviewed or what.Airpear 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Brick disamb style
'Moth' and 'bills' were oversights (now fixed) due to the fact that I often do multiple edits on the same page. I find that doing edits in small doses is better than trying to change everything at once, as sometimes other people edit/update a page in the middle of longer edits and it becomes a hassle to copy/paste the entire page.

It's recommended Wiki style to only have one link per disambiguation topic. Wherever possible, that single link should be to the most relevant topic in the entry. I've tried to adhere to that principle as much as possible, but feel free to edit further if you feel I haven't done so.

- IstvanWolf (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, I was just curious if it was "Style" for WP. It makes sense that it is; after all, the page is simply to disabiguate various meanings of Term, whatever it happens to be. Oversights happen, glad it's fixed. And yes, I agree that it's a royal pain when a longer edit gets interrupted by others, and I try to keep edits small. I think it also helps others see what I've done.&#8201;—&#8201;gogobera (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Tit for tat, defect or not to defect.
You wrote on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tit_for_tat&oldid=180487138:

"Tit for Tat should only be used when the end is determined randomly, after each round, so that an infinite game could be possible. Furthermore, only assuming a universe that manages to avoid a big crunch or heat death."

I would say that I play a tit for two tats with my equally powerful players. I would still continue to cooperate even if I knew that the game would have an end, as long as I would not know exactly when it would end. It would be better to sacrifice the benefit of defecting in the last move (and thereby on every previous move), if that would mean that your opponent might reason the same way. I would of course always defect on the very last move.

If what you said above would be true, then everyone would always defect since everyones lifetime is finite. Tommy (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)