User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive20

Reference script
Hey Lulu,

I've made a perl script that does point 5 on your list of things. It's not perfect yet, but see and  for a preview. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. Is the actual script available though?  LotLE × talk  22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

question about &lt;ref&gt; element/system
We met on the capitalism talk page after I mixed reference styles. You seem to know a lot about this stuff, so i wanted to ask you if you know the answer to a question I posed on the wiki footnotes disussion. Especially for long articles like the capitalism article this splitting of footnotes from references (while combining references with their parenthetical citations) would be quite nice. Any solutions you might be familiar with? --Cplot 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism
I understand. Interestingly enough, C-Liberal has made only around 50 edits since July 29. If he/she continues to be disruptive, I'll go ahead and request an IP check. 172 | Talk 06:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Blood thirsty capitalists
Looks like the issue you mentioned has died off for the day...I was out at a local National Wildlife Refuge all afternoon, got some good pictures of a Double-crested cormorant, and one decent one of some American Goldfinches, and they are a lot more brilliant than the image in the article. I keep my eye on the capitalism page, but as I said before, about all I can do is try and copyedit, and keep the peace...my knowledge of the subject from an academic standard is low....all I know is right now, I'm spending a lot more than I am making!--MONGO 06:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds quite lovely. I don't know my birds, but I like watching them in the forest.  In... well, a few hours... I'll be going to Cape Cod with my partner (her family does an annual vacation there... it's just a couple hours drive from us).  So who knows how bad my internet connection will be over the next couple weeks (I may stay the whole time, but probably only part of it; but pretty close is fortunate).  Anyway, they have some really nice forested areas there... as well as the coast and salt marshes, of course.  Actually, I think where I'm going is close to Woods Hole (but I haven't been to the research station, so I may be placing it slightly wrong).  LotLE × talk  07:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Take binoculars...there are plenty of Terns there and other gull-like birds. I haven't been to the ocean for a real trip there since 1999...although I saw it in 2001...ooooh, that's bad. Have a great time.--MONGO 08:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking at "blood thirsy capitalists," if you have time, and you're wanting to take a break from the capitalism article, I'll appreciate it if you take a look at this CfD. Thanks. 172 | Talk 03:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unexpected, long message
Thanks for the unexpected, long message. I was booted indefinately, so I thought you were talking to me...


 * You were?! You seem to be editing now, so I think the action must have been reversed, right? LotLE × talk  04:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The audio of the debate was okay Talk:Ward_Churchill -- I was hoping for more go to the throat action. Thanks for the info.

Talk:Ward_Churchill  was particularly good.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting the links on the talk page. Some of those better belong on the "misconduct allegations" sibling/child than in the main bio, but some would fit in the main bio.  I tend to agree that it's OK to unprotect the article now... you might want to ask User:MONGO about it, since he placed the block.  I think MONGO did so mostly because of the POV-mongering by Dr. 701 ; but since that user was blocked for unrelated reasons, that concern seems alleviated.  I am a bit concerned that Verklempt will add not-quite-accurate versions of recent events (he doesn't exactly fabricate, but he often "spins", or somehow always misses precision in such a way as to suggest something negative about Churchill that isn't quite supported by the source).  That said, for the most part, Verklempt's additions of late have been quite reasonable and factual.  LotLE × talk  04:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

your smartass friend
you have the advantage over me - what is 4'33" ? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry. I should have wikilinked to John Cage's 4'33" (of silence).  LotLE × talk

Ah! Well, what I say stands. Whatever Cage's intention, once the text is freed to be performed by others (as it were) in various contexts to different audiences, different experiences and interpretations of the text will be produced (a waste of time? tranquility?  a revolution in music?  I bet Cage wanted to provoke a variety of responses and would not question different people's experiences of his text). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm... did I omit the tag too? :-) I'm so scatterbrained lately.


 * FWIW, I read the article for the first time yesterday, and was really excited to learn that Zappa had performed it. I've heard the London Philharmonic version. LotLE × talk  15:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I am waaaaaaaaaay more scatterbrained than you. Second, Wikipedia sends out some kind of radiation that really (and unfortunately) skews my whole sense of irony. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Political philosophy
Without a consistent IP address, I don't know if there's anything to do other than revert the Jose Moreno edits periodically, unless you ask that the article be semi-protected. I went ahead and put the page on my watchlist. Thanks for letting me know. I'll watch the list, keeping track of edits that seem to excessivley broaden the focus of the list beyond the 'big 20 or so' currently listed. 172 | Talk 21:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism and Catholicism
Thank you for noticing the section was not quite in the right spot. A lot of Catholics thing that because Communism is condemned by the Church that capitalism and its vices are thus okay. I mentioned it on the talk page for capitalism that various Catholic authors are construing Catholic teaching to justify immoral practices. It is no small matter. I will see if it fits better under "criticism," but really it needs the emphasis of a full sized headed so Catholics get the point that the Church does NOT justify capitalism and its vices. JBogdan 03:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work summarizing the content on Leo XIII and Rerum Novarum. I'd meant to add a line or two on Rerum Novarum under "criticism" myself, but I forgot. 172 | Talk 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed paragraph on Criticisms of capitalism. Also, the Catholic Church's position is significant because it binds approximately one out of six people to abide by its rules (actually, everyone is, but we will leave that for another time). Rerum Novarum does not have a weak critique of capitalism--it condemns what we know as "capitalism." The encyclical offers the solution to the evils of capitalism, but, as usual, people would rather learn the hard way. JBogdan 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not many Catholics accept it does not have anything to do with its binding force--it just means a lot of people are sinning. Rerum Novarum is still an official encyclical and the morality it requires is still binding (actually, it was binding before the encyclical was written because the encyclical only summarised the responsibilities that were already required by charity and justice). But, if you insist, The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same thing in the section on the seventh commandment. You can the section on the seventh commandment here, or you can go to paragraph 2425 if you want to be specific (but note--for some of the other aspects of the Church's postion, you have to check the paragraphs on the following page). JBogdan 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lulu, your justification for changing the official Catholic position on Capitalism was the following: It appears one of the three problems exist: The references were provided to affirm that it is indeed the current official Catholic position, and what the official Catholic position is. You have not provided any reliable references that show otherwise. For further information, see the policy page on Verifiability. JBogdan 16:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * rm POV (and minoritarian) advocacy of specific Catholic theological trend, state actual (mixed) position in encyclopedic terms
 * You have not read the appropriate documents of the Catholic Church on the subject
 * You have read the documents, and do not understand them
 * You have read the documents and understand them, but you do not like what they say

Recommended books?
Have you read a lot of Churchill? I just read my fourth essay written by him. I relate more to him than any other leftist writer, including Zinn, Blum, and Chomsky.

If you have read his books, is there any book in particular that you can recommend? What is his best book? Travb (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really know his work that well. I've glanced at a number of titles, and read a moderate number of his essays.  But pretty much I'd just choose what to read based on titles.  LotLE × talk  09:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Weigh in?
Lulu, is there any chance you can weigh in at race and intelligence at Talk:Race_and_intelligence? Thanks if you can, Nectar 13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Snyderman and Rothman
Lulu, sorry for intruding, but from the few words you left at Talk:Race_and_intelligence it looks like you know a lot about this specific survey. I've been trying to dig, but so far all I could come up with were pro-genetic researchers quoting it as a validation of their viewpoint, much like Nectar and Rikurzhen do. I was wondering if you could just point me to an online resource that would have either the full survey, or an impartial, in-depth analysis of some sort. I hope there is such a thing. I'd really like to help rebalance this article to a more NPOV stance. Thanks again for any information you can spare. --Ramdrake 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the S&R survey is linked in the article; if it isn't, that's probably good reason to just delete the whole thing outright. But the bad design isn't anything subtle.  The options provided to respondents simply don't map the conceptual space of answer... and they distort the possible responses to produce exactly the result they got.  I discussed all this at some length way back last November: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 18.  All my comments back then stand. I may have made some in other threads, but particularly the "Hypothetical poll" I present shows what's wrong with the one actually conducted.  LotLE × talk  20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The S&R Survey links to a book-like citation, nothing online. That's why I was asking. But thanks for referring me to a specific archive and timeframe. I'll start by looking it up there. :) --Ramdrake 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I'm pretty sure that back in that Nov-ish timeframe I found something online about S&R, but I don't remember a specific URL now. But it really doesn't matter as far as my criticism goes: the allowed answers by themselves show how awful the design is. LotLE × talk  20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism
I don't know why you removed part of text which says that Friedman is leading figure of the Chicago School. He is a leading figure, or at least one of its leading figures. "For example", leaves an impression that we could choose any of Chicago's economists, and that isn't the case. -- Vision Thing -- 19:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indicating Friedman's comments in the Chicago School section is more than enough to indicate his association with that school. Beyond that, it just becomes peacock words that don't add any actual content.  His article is linked, and readers are perfectly able to read more about Friedman if they wish.  The relevance of MF's comment (which I agree is relevant) has nothing to do with whether or to what degree he is "leading", it's what the comment itself says about the nature of capitalism (which is retained).  LotLE × talk  19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

State
I made a major revision to the state article, which I had recently rewritten. See my talk page post here. If you have time, your input will be quite helpful. Regards, 172 | Talk 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there might be something salvageable from the section you deleted, though certainly some significant rewording is needed to avoid OR. I've watchlisted that article, but I have a big conference that I'm covering as a reporter (and presenting at) this coming week... so I want to avoid getting much involved in any new WP topic until next weekend, at least. FWIW, the thing I'm going to (OSCon 2006) relates to an entirely different career of mine than the one that prompts you to ask my input on these political philosophy topics (no significance there, just rambling).  LotLE × talk  21:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. Good luck at the conference! It looks really interesting, but the subject is way over my head. 172 | Talk 22:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ref convert 2
I wrote a reply to your question here. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Weigh in again?
Lulu, would you mind giving your opinion again? It's been suggested a pov tag should be placed on R&I: Talk:Race and intelligence.

(I understand you're semi-retired from the article, so I try to keep in mind the arguments you've made there. I wanted to note that, while another editor stopped by and re-added something we had moved to a footnote after you had argued for that,* I've been planning to put it back into the footnote, but I'm going to bring it up as part of a larger discussion first.


 * Murray's response to the APA statement: "Actually, there is no direct evidence at all, just a wide variety of indirect evidence, almost all of which the task force chose to ignore.")

--Nectar 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment requested
You may (or may not) want to comment here since I brought your name up... or subheadded now below that......see also a straw poll here......thanks...and see also this--MONGO 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1 disruption on Judith Butler
Looks like someone else got it, but I'll keep my eyes open. -Smahoney 06:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Occamist.
Thank you for that. It's good to have an alternative to inclusionist/deletionist. I might now refer to myself as a corpuscularian. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 19:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you tried dieting? :-)


 * In my honors thesis, way back when I was an undergrad, it bothered me that nominally nominalist philosopher W.V.O.Quine, really didn't quite follow through on his slogan: "No entity without identity". Specifically, Willard seemed to flinch when it came to nominalism about language itself: i.e. he thought words made perfectly good entities, despite their obvious lack of self-identity (both syncronic, as in semantic drift, and diachronic).   But once you go Saussurian, therein lie the perils of Lacanianism, from which I have not recovered.  LotLE × talk  20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert
You call it a revert. It's not that. You are changing my conceptions of the work to your conceptions of it. Since I am not making the same changes every time I edit, in the same sections, or on the same subject, I'm not subject to the 3RR rule for things that are not reverts, which are topical to the matter without being POV, and are not vandalism. -Kmaguir1 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not going to play. Gibberish that disrupts the article will be reverted.  You don't know anywhere near enough to attempt "rule lawyering"; and the article isn't your personal playground to write random graffiti, as you appear to believe.  Go away for a while... maybe a few months... spend some time making actual productive edits on some article... and come back to this article when you've grown up enough to work on an encyclopedia.  LotLE × talk  03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Foucault
That information is sourced--read the source, it is reputable. It's not homophobic--it's what one homosexual is suggested to have done by reputable sources. Stop cutting out the truth! Verifiable truth! Stop doing This .. it's vandalism, and it's your own particular political agenda!!! -Kmaguir1 04:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Sorry for butting in) Actually, even if it is sourced, it is speculation, as the addition itself admitted. -Smahoney 04:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The rampant homophobia of the "spread AIDS" thing is entirely inappropriate no matter what. Just finding some third party who is homophobic doesn't merit inclusion.  The part about the investigated appointment might be OK if it weren't written in such unencyclopedic doggerel.  LotLE × talk  05:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's staying--it's all sourced in the Miller article. Read the Miller article. That's all I have to say. The second quote admits speculation, but cites sources that say that it IS true, including Foucault's boyfriend, who states he KNOWINGLY exposed other people to AIDS. But as far as the investigated appt., that's FACT. The language is fine. Stop deleting my works. -Kmaguir1 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:3RR block on User:Kmaguir1
Hmm maybe you should try WP:RFC/U. In the meantime, if he violates 3RR again he'll probably get a lot longer block. -- Миборо в ский 21:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You were unjustified in blocking me, sir. You did not respond to my email in request for you to show cause for it. I have asked for your apology on the Talk:Judith Butler page. -Kmaguir1 07:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It may get there. But I've found that RfC's are endlessly slow, and nothing much ever happens at the end of them.  So I'm not all that anxious to pursue that avenue.  Especially since I've fairly confident that the disruptive editor will manage to earn a multi-month block before too long, on some grounds or another.  I was just hoping that a stern word from you (someone entirely uninvolved in the particular content pages), might finally get this guy to wake up from his self-righteous delusion about the need to "expose" the evil philosophers (Judith Butler and Michel Foucault, so far; possibly some other thing next).  LotLE × talk  21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Result of RFCU on User:Kmaguir1
Aloha. The result for the RFCU that I filed against Kmaguir1 (here) came back "possible" which seems to fit into their evidence of saying that they know each other from school (same ISP/IP range due to close proximity of them). I don't know if it is even worth the block. Let me know. Iola k ana |T 13:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, never mind. I have blocked Truthseekers. Iola k ana |T  13:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's correct (obviously). The "possible" result is logically consistent with "good friend from school".  But it's also logically consistent (and more likely IMO) with "I think I'm so clever to use a remote shell to fool those Wikipedians".  LotLE × talk  14:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

List of dictators to date
User:172 who I have much respect for says that my article is a POV fork. I disagree. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antispammer (talk • contribs)


 * It does not seem improper to me to highlight those dictators who meet the List of dictators criteria who are currently in power. If we could actually transclude the names automatically, that would certainly be better, but the MediaWiki technology is not there currently.


 * However, where is this discussion with 172? I'd like to see what comment he actually makes before judging. LotLE × talk  15:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Heres what he said The issue is not that I disagree with any particular entry on your "list." There is alreay an entry entitled "list of dictators," which happens to be a very problematic page itself that barely survived an AfD poll. "Your "list" is a classic case of a Wikipedia:POV fork. It serves no purpose other than making a clear political statement. Stop recreating it. 172 | Talk 02:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC) --Antispammer 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually figured out that you blanked your talk page where the discussion occurred. WTF?! That's really terrible etiquette all around. 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I always blank my talk page, and there was no discussion. Only what I copied here.--Antispammer 21:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I find the disruptiveness of blanking a talk page too much to try to enter into any discussion on the question... who knows whether you'd blank out whatever comments I made if you didn't like them. Such blanking seems like about the worst violation of wikiquette that I can think of; right up there with vandalism and the like. Archiving is fine, of course.  LotLE × talk  00:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I will follow your advice from now on. Please help me out on my talk page. --Antispammer 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)