User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive22

Award
Wow. What a beautiful picture! I've only ever seen some small glaciers in Colorado or Wyoming... but my little interest that you lured over to Glacier retreat makes me want to see some of these major ones in person. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

List of dictators currently in power
Thanks for your support. Greatly appreciated.--Antispammer 01:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I need your help. User:172 keeps deleting my work 1 2 and I don't know what to tell him anymore. Can you help me rebuttal his points?

WP:CITE
Thanks for your help with the "no recommendation" thing. I thought there were edits to WP:CITE between 04:52 and 21:05 on 13 August. Can intermediate edits disappear? Gimmetrow 16:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In principle an admin, or maybe a bureaucrat, can permanently delete parts of an edit history. But that's only done in "extreme cases" like a horribly libelous edit.  My first thought is that there weren't any edits.  My second thought is that you misread.  And my third thought is "database glitch".  Somewhere after that, I might think about "misbehaving admin", or still later "libel in the edit history".  LotLE × talk  16:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My mind may be going, but I distinctly remember one edit that I cannot find now. Well it's over. Why don't experienced editors start discussions on the talk page before major policy/guideline rewrites? The same editors usually insist that other editors discuss first. Never ceases to amaze me. Please delete this after reading. Gimmetrow 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you were tongue-in-cheek, but I never delete comments from my talk page (I archive them periodically, of course; but I take the idea of talk pages as public discourse seriously). You can email me, of course, if you mean something for my eyes only. LotLE × talk  18:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Partly joking, but I often remove discourse of short-term relevance. It's still in the history record. Gimmetrow 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating article by Putnam
While working on the Putnam article, I ran across this interesting article in which Putnam makes several striking, and probably true, claims. He basically suggests that self-consciously "analytic philosophy" is a very recent invention (1970s or so), that its history is systematically distorted in the universities (very true!!), that scientism is overblown, and other such provocative theses. I find myself in agreement with much of this. Do you know anything about the relationship betwen Putnam's later and Habermas? If you do, you might add something to the article on this. I haven't read Putnam's most recent writing, but I'm always lloking for ideas to improve articles. Lastly, the Putnam FAC vote was overturned and restarted by Raul, so your vote was wiped out. If you'd like to vote again....How long do these things go on anyway. It seems completely arbitrary.He took my Fodor article off in five days and has left the Putnam one active for about a month. Doesn't seem very Wikipedian-spirit to me.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, my active reading of Putnam ended at the end of the 1980s, so I also haven't followed his recent directions. I read pretty much everything he had written up until then; but then I went off reading those funny French folks.  Reading you bio on WP was quite interesting, and I learned a bunch of new stuff about his directions in the 1990s.


 * I don't have any guideline to suggest about FAC processes. It's at the whim of closing admins in large part; but even then, I think they try to leave a FAC open "as long as doing so is productive" (maybe solicits more comments and improvements).  A month definitely sounds way too long; but if no one thinks to do something, it doesn't get done.


 * Btw. I would value your input on a topic I have raised at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Specifically, I have frequently encountered a set of issues on biographies of academics that are somewhat narrower and more specific than for generic "biographies of living persons". I am thinking that it might be time to propose a guideline about this, or maybe just an essay on the topic. But before I try to float that, I'm interested in what you think. LotLE × talk  14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have only had a chance to skim over it. I can say that I fully agree re the first point about too much focus on personal stuff and too little on work. But, then, most of the bios I have written have been about people with little to no published offical or unoffical biograhies, so I have been constrained to focus on their work in any case. On the other point, if interpreted to broadly, I think this might conflict with the whole idea of NPOV. Or, at least, as that notion is understood ny the reviewers of FACs, for example. I do agree that "criticism" can seem to tear down the ideas of the person one is writing about if they are carried too far. You are   on the right track in bringing it up, at the least. One of the main problems in writing philopshy bios is how much criticism, what is meanignful criticism, shuold I add the response of X to Y, the counterexample from Z and all the details of the history of the infinite debate which took place between D and E. Such a process can obviouly distract from getting out the main ideas and eplxaining why (or why not) they are intersting and important. As I've said before, I do not think point-by-point criticism should be a prerequisite for every bio. i can think of cases outside phi. where it is ridicouly inappropraite. E.g. Does Intellient design or other  forms (all the forms!!) of creationims have to be included in the bio about Darwin?   --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Raul Castro
And just how is he not a dictator? I thought it would not be controversial to add him in the list. A dictator handing over power to his brother still seems like a dictatorship to me.--Antispammer 08:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The page gives five criteria. Looking at them one-by-one I cannot identify any good-faith argument that he meets even one of them, let alone the required all five.  Which makes me believe that you created the child page only out of some sort of anti-Cuba POV-mongering.  LotLE × talk  09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats nonsense. I did not make the child page for any sort of anti-Cuba POV-mongering.  I just thought it was a no brainer to add Raul Castro, to the list of dictators, since you put Fidel as out of power in 2006.--Antispammer 14:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Re List of dictators edit
Hi Lulu. I agree w/ you but my edit is meant to mean that the former guy is in power for a transitional period to hand-over power to people through democracy. Is anyone who seized power thru a coup d'état w/ no blood considered a dictator? I justified my edit w/ notable sources. -- Szvest 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Like I say, I am not knowledgeable about Mauritania, so defer to your judgement and evidence.  It just seemed odd to read "replace X with Y" in the edit comment.  Definitely a coup by itself is not enough to satisfy the criteria at the top of the list; I think we did a really nice job (with much work and negotation) of finding a good set of criteria that editors could explicitly evaluate and cite relevative to a specific ruler.  LotLE × talk  20:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolute ruler
Which defintion are you using for absolute ruler on the list of dictators article?--Antispammer 15:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't ask me, ask the appropriate article talk page! Seriously, it's not my definition. But before you even ask the article talk page, I'd strongly recommend reading the archives where these criteria were discussed at great length: A lot of really bright editors researched the language used in a large number of other reference works, and our criteria represents the careful synthesis of several such external definitions.  I did just wikilink absolute ruler, though it's a redirect that isn't quite perfect... the term itself is fairly widely used and fairly well-defined in poitical science as a discipline.  LotLE × talk  16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

comment?
Lulu, some of the editors at R&I have summarized their argument on an issue for a RfC. Do you think you could do us the favor of weighing in? (We'd rather have someone with your familiarity with the topic give their opinion than make a formal RfC listing.) Talk:Race_and_intelligence --Nectar 06:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Eiffel agents
It looks like the section on Eiffel agents was just added. The page is currently under upheaval, so that's why the secton was missing. Thanks for the comments. Fuchsias 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Public Domain articles
On a better subject, have you heard anything about getting articles to be public domain/no rights reserved? On someone's talk page I had seen that someone was asking users for their concensus to do it with certain articles (such as articles about Governments). I wanted to do it on Wikibooks with one of the books I started, but the admin did not seem to know about it or anything like it.JBogdan 02:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I doubt it is possible to do this for very many articles. Contributing to WP implicitly releases content as GFDL.  But for an article to become PD, you'd need the PD release by all the contributors, even the anonymous ones.  That would be awfully hard to track down and obtain for any significantly edited article.  I personally explicitly release all my contributions as PD.  But it's sort of irrelevant since once my words are combined with GFDL contributions, the whole thing becomes GFDL.  On the other hand, GFDL (with no invariants) really isn't that bad... and it's hard to see what need you would have for publication that did not respect that license.  LotLE × talk  02:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism
I had just removed it from my watchlist a few days ago since it appeared that all was well! Looks like the chart is now off the article...will keep an eye on things. I suppose I should do another read through to see how things shape up...it looks pretty good...how about a peer review? Is the article fairly stable, or are there still major disagreements?--MONGO 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really anything major. JBogdan wanted some fairly belabored theological rambling about Catholicism (which he wants characterized simply as a "critic of capitalism").  That went back and forth a while with me trying to get in a neutral phrasing that didn't have the tone of a Catholic Encyclical to it.  But an anon may have cut that Gordian knot by completely substituting a fairly good description that compared several religious traditions in the same paragraph.  Either way, that was just a paragraph in question, and it was almost more about getting a neutral tone than a substantial content disagreement.


 * The article only gets unstable when Ultramarine or VisionThing goes a bit bat-shit insane and starts ripping out sections, or putting in long and irrelevant rants, or sticking in as many disruptive tags as they can locate. Most of the time that doesn't happen, but there are flare-ups where it does.  Seeing the foolish chart looks like the beginning of a renewed disruption effort.  Maybe they're keyed in to the phase of the moon or something.


 * Still, maybe Peer Review would be good. LotLE × talk  16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Any idea why the article was delisted from the Good Article list?--MONGO 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked the history, but I'm pretty sure it was a little stunt by either Ultramarine or VisionThing... just a passive-aggressive thing to take out their anger that the article is NPOV rather than editorializing on the joys of Capitalism. But as I understand it, formally anyone is allowed to take articles off GA if they feel like... so I can't see what's to do.  LotLE × talk  17:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Lulu. The paragraph is a lot more balanced now that several other viewpoints from other religions were added (it seemed awkward from the start to have a section on only the Catholic position, but no one had added any other positions on the matter). Your edit said: Please note: I did not say the Catholic solution was "the" solution; I did say it was the solution that the Catholic Church proposes, which I provided with the appropriate references. "Uphold"--Ok, that sounds doctrinal--do you have any ideas for a better word? As for "Long doctrinal statements"--Ok, the encyclicals are quite lengthy and that can be dropped if you insist. Probably reference to the Catechism is sufficient. Also, what aspects of capitalism does the Catholic Church "endorse"? Please provide references. The Catechism says:
 * (saying Catholic is "solution" is pure POV (likewise "uphold", etc); the vatican links are not "citations" since they link to whole long doctrine statements not specific claims (and refute criticism))
 * 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.206 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."207 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.(emphasis added, also, I tried to get the link to show just this paragraph--it is close enough)

Could you let me know on my talk page? JBogdan 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism/Frustration
I understand and fully share your frustration with Ultramarine. However, a number of people besides you and I have been critical of the graph. Please do not risk alienating those supporters by losing your cool. Instead, let us just try collectively to maintain the integrity of the article. If we keep our cool Ultramarine will give up or loose his cool and either way, we will be in a stronger position. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the sound advice. You are quite right that I should write less rather than more; I just get so frustrated by patently dishonest arguments that show contempt for NPOV and WP:OR.  I will try to reflect on your greater wisdom in this matter of collaborative dynamics prior to venting righteous indignation.  All the best,  LotLE × talk  20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"copyvio" links at Bullshit!
Talk:Bullshit%21. Interested to see your take (or lack of).Yeago 21:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

request for help
On the Capitalism page you (and I and others) have been confronting a very specific instance of NOR violation. Right now there is a heated set of debates going on at the No original research page. I believe all people involved are acting in good faith, but I am opposing a few people who accuse me of changing the policy, whereas I think they want a weaker form of the policy. At heart, I think the problem is that these editors lack the kind of experience you have had with Ultramarine, which illustrates the need for a strong NOR policy. I am not asking you to bring our discussion of Ultramarine and GDP over to the talk page for NOR. I just think you have the experience that makes you well-situated to offer constructive and insightful comments.

This was the original section in NOR:
 * ==Primary and secondary sources==
 * Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
 * Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.


 * Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.


 * In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

Here is the version I and a couple of others came up with, which is currently locked in but heavily criticized and challenged:
 * ==Primary and secondary sources==


 * Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations; literary works such as poems, scripts and screemplays, or novels.


 * Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.


 * Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources. However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events). These are relatively rare exceptions and contributors drawing predominately or solely from primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.


 * Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

It is a long debate and if you are willing there are three sections in particular I would like you to read over carefully. Then, if you think you have anything to add tot he discussion as a whole, place your comments at the end of each section.   (here I would ask you to read carefully and comment on the discussion at 14.7, discussion of cases. I´d really value your input even if it takes you a day to mull all this over.

Thanks,Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

bell hooks
Sorry we were tripping over each other there. I've been reading through way too many pages on hooks criticism and this speech, as well as the three sources given for it. Have gotten involved to show certain editors (like Kmaguir1 or anyone who doesn't yet know his MO) how to report on controversy with a neutral POV. Hope that comes across in my latest edit there. Greetings, --Anthony Krupp 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good job. Sorry about the weird edit trip-up.  I actually don't understand what happened exactly, since what my edit wound up with was not the version I thought I was reverting to, nor does it seem exactly identical to any prior version.  I think there's a technical glitch involved.  But anyway, your tone cleanup and NPOV context is certainly excellent quality.  LotLE × talk  21:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 00:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Alex Martelli
Hey there. In dealing with copyvio problems when not ALL of the text is a copyvio and there exists a clean version, we usually delete all of the edits that contained copyvio text (even if you weren't actually editing the copyvio text) so it is no longer visible. That way, our liability is eliminated. For Alex Martelli, I then restored the "clean" versions. Make sense? If needed, I or another admin can still view your individual edits for historical purposes. Let me know if you ever need to see one. Thanks -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No biggie. I was a little curious about some edits I made, but it was of fleeting interest.  LotLE × talk  20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning
The 3-RR rule prohibits reverting more than three times on one page. Please see :WP:AN/3RR

If you have any questions, feel free to message me! -Kmaguir1 02:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Care to let me know what article you might be referring to? Or is this just sort of well-known moral advice? LotLE × talk  02:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably Articles for deletion/Danny Yee (second nomination), where he has now blanked one of your comments three times. I reverted, and also reinserted one of his prior blanked comments.--Anthony Krupp 02:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference!
Thank you for locating the full reference details for the cascading correlation article! It's really appreciated LinaMishima 03:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversed delete descision.
As per my stipulations in the Danny Yee discussion. - Shazbot85 Talk 07:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I greatly appreciate your willingness to look at the notability issue a second time in light of my expanded description. I still think the article could be improved further, but I believe with several requests on the same lines from AfD commentors, I've greatly improved the quality of the biography over the last day. All the best,  LotLE × talk  07:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I came across the articles I made suggestions for from looking over his contributions page. It's fun to go snooping around what others are up to, particularly if it's a discussion over deletion. - Shazbot85 Talk 07:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Question for You
I'm curious about what you like the most about programming in the functional style. Put another way, when you think about taking that approach what are the immediate benefits that are gained with that decision?

By the way I should mentioned that your articles on Python and functional programming were one of the first things I read in regards to FP. About four years ago I was laid off and started my career as an independent software consultant. Early on I wanted to expand my skill set (which until then was mostly concentrated in an obscure 4GL called FAME that was dedicated to time series analysis) and began learning Python and K, roughly at the same time. I had major problems learning K, which I found completely alien in conception. I decided to do some background research and that's when I discovered functional programming and quickly discovered an overlap between my training in Python, which was a blast to learn, and my need to understand FP in your articles. Abcarter 12:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any particular pithy one-liner on the joys of FP beyond what's in the FP article here... or what's in my articles that you mention. In fact, not terribly much of the programming I actually do is particularly functional; Python is still the biggest chunk of my programming, and I have a decidedly mixed and ad hoc approach when using it (the multi-paradigm aspect is quite nice): even any OOP purity is rare, I tend to build up abstractions as-needed, but not before.  But then, what I really do is write words about programs, and I get to think about computer programs (which is delightful).  FP is a wonderful set of concepts, and thinking them through gives one a greater clarity and flexibility in approaching programs, even ones which are not particularly FP... I guess that's the closest thing to the pithy one-liner.  LotLE × talk  16:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please join the RfC on Kmaguir1
I've started Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1; if you're familiar with this, please join in. (A second five-tilde signature is necessary as well.) Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 19:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Second signature is there, so the RfC should be valid. If you could add to it, though, esp. with providing diffs (I'm not great at this, and am busy entertaining a three-year old, so can't work more than 2 minutes without interruption), that would be great.--Anthony Krupp 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I might be able to get around to tracking diffs later tonight (but not this second). I didn't want to sign until there was more explicit detail on the RfC.  In general, I'm sure I'm happy to endorse it; but it is good to see something specific that I am endorsing.  LotLE × talk  20:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, makes sense re: signing. Good job on nudging towards neutral tone. I've started listing diffs, but can't do much more today, so if you can revisit, that'd be great. If you're familiary with this RfC process, you can also see whether we can just refer in blanket fashion to the talk pages of Butler, Foucault, hooks, where most of his non-cooperation can be documented, or whether specific diffs in those cases are also called for. Perhaps both? Not sure; I've never done this before. Looking forward to just editing again, but now I feel a moral obligation to wikipedia to make sure this editor either acts as if he's learned something or gets blocked.--Anthony Krupp 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your revert of my example
I disagree strongly with your revert of my example, but I will not revert it. I edit under the impression that users should not have to jump to a separate article just to see an example of the language they are reading about (the entire reason I added it).

I have also expressed concern on Python's talk page about implementation details on the language page, which coincide with this.

WP:TPA -- A perfect Wikipedia article is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles. The average reader is not going to jump to an article on syntax details just to see the language they are reading about.

This could be a great article (it is not, currently), and I do not want to butt heads with you. Let's work together. I'll hear from you tomorrow, I'm logging off for the evening. --JS talk 04:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like the code sample, and I particularly don't visually like the way it's put in a sidebar box. I don't believe that a "perfectly self-contained" article on a programming language necessarily contains a toy code sample; in fact, I tend to think it usually should not.  But take the suggestion to the talk page, and see what other editors think.  If it's popular, I'll happily cede to consenus.


 * I do like the addition of a screenshot of an interactive shell. I think that was yours.  Perhaps you could create an enhanced interactive shell session that contained more fleshed out constructs.  Maybe a 'def' of an entire (short) function, and then a call to it.  There's a lot of blank space in that example window.  That could let us "kill two birds with one stone" in the use of sidebar material.  LotLE × talk  04:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said on the talk page, I'm sorry. Another editor has inflamed my hostility (which is a bad reflection on me, I know) and it has carried over to you (and another editor) a bit. I read your paper about a year after you wrote it, and never made the connection (even though your name is on your user page). I have premonitions about Wikipedia editors from my days of monitoring the encyclopedia as a critic, and unfortunately, you fell victim to that. I'm still working on opening my mind a bit, and I've had a couple clashes thus far.


 * I fell asleep last night kind of wishing I could just pull out of the debates I'm in, because they're pointless and anti-centric to the real goal of Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm pulling out of this one. You are leagues more qualified than I am to make decisions about Python, and I will let you.


 * Sorry to have come off strong at all. I'll be much more interactable when the Virtual memory debate is over. Look me up. --JS talk 00:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And screenshot fixed. --JS talk 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice job with the enhanced screenshot. Please don't feel scared off from Python. If you need a wikibreak, definitely take one... but your contributions and comments have been helpful, and I certainly welcome them. I might not agree with every particular of what you edit or comment; but that doesn't mean that I think you are something other than a very capable and good-faith editor. LotLE × talk 02:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism issues
I don't like to leave pages protected for too long since it locks out new editors that may have something worth offering, so I felt a week was long enough. I'm heading out for the evening, but will be back on-line in 8 hours or less, so hopefully, everyone will holds hands and sing songs of mutual admiration...okay, I suppose that's not likely....but it sounded special at least!--MONGO 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

progamming languages poll
Hey,

thanks for organising this. I've made several changes to the layout for better organisation of the discussion, and i'm going through the "programming langauges" category to tag all of those which are not at X (programming language). There are several at X (programming) and X (programming language) and X (computing) already; i figure we'll move these to whatever the outcome of this poll is. atanamir 00:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed your move for python. Way to be bold! Should we set a end date for the poll? How much longer should we let the votes trickle in? atanamir 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think being slightly sneaky is a good plan (as I hinted at). A few languages seem to have editors who have objected to the move (for reasons I do not think are all that good, but y'know).  It seems like the "low hanging fruit" are those where the corresponding editors have either supported it, or just not commented.  If most of those are converted over the next few days, we can let the rest lie for a week or more (naming is already inconsistent among PLs, so this just moves the ratio).  I think most editors won't even notice since it's just a redirect (but good procedure is to fix those other articles linking to the redirect, as much as possible).  If the first batch go fine with no late-stage objections, the fact that worked can help us get the few lingerers moved also.  LotLE × talk  19:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your help requested again!
Hey Lulu, I was wondering if you could look over this: Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers. It's based on recent radical edits by Francis Schonken to a page I worked on a lot over the summer. Cheers,-Anthony Krupp 14:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot?
I'm not good with wikipedia tools (i usually edit by hand), but seeing the immense number of double redirects, I surrender and humbly ask you if there is any sort of bot that can fix the links for me...

Thanks, atanamir 03:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops --> this is refering to moving the prog lang pages.


 * Unfortunately, I do not know of one. That's not to say that one doesn't exist, just that I am ignorant.  Perhaps asking at Village pump (technical) would be a good start.  Or somewhere else that doesn't occur to me right away :-).  LotLE × talk  03:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There was aproblem with moving --> what about D programming language (disambiguation)? What should we do with that...atanamir 03:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... interesting issue. I guess I'd ask on the talk pages of the several same-named languages how they would like to handle it.  Present the fact the poll was closed, and that other articles have been renamed, and just ask how they'd like to handle those particular articles.  Nothing obviously right jumps out at me, but perhaps someone will have a good idea.  LotLE × talk  05:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A possible solution is to do sometihng like at London (disambiguation) but at D (disambiguation), we'd just have a subsection titled "Programming languages". atanamir 06:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism stuff
I suppose I should leave the OR tag there...let's hope Economizer will now realize that making substantive changes to an article like that should be discussed, at least a little, on the talk page.--MONGO 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine... it's not even the fact there's a tag, just that it's the wrong tag. {OR} would be one thing, but the one he put was {SectOR}.  I guess he thinks of the lead as a "section"... I suppose because he seems not to have read any farther than the lead.


 * He's not actually as bad as Ultramarine, so far. It looks like he joined WP in August, and all his edits have been in related topics.  I guess the username suggests that.  And in his mild defense, he tried a number of paraphrases to get the same caricature into the lead... but they all amounted to the same thing (not something totally false, just something overly simplistic, and unnecessary).  But still, he reacted angrily to requests to discuss it on talk... in this case, I have actually been far kinder than my usual bristly self in making the request.  Oh well, thanks again for the protection... it forces the matter to the talk page.


 * On the talk page, in advocacy of his "decisions based on supply-and-demand" thing, he quoted a funny source. It was some sociology book whose author started out with "All the dictionary definitions of Capitalism are wrong because..." and then leading into roughly Economizer's point.  So he did find an external source.  But it's amusing that the source itself started out by stating it rejected consensus opinion (on a detail or focus, not really fundamentally)... that's something possible to cite later into the body of the article, but not in the lead.


 * Completely unrelated: I saw the article someone linked on your talk page about Steve Jones being suspended for his advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy stuff. That's a bit disturbing to me.  Jones is definitely a nut.  But the article linked seems to suggest his suspension was for matters quite unrelated to his actual professional duties... shades of the Churchill treatment, I fear.  I guess I'll need to follow this more closely... but I hate the thought of getting trapped on those awful conspiracy articles that have seized you :-).  LotLE × talk  22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism and Catholicism (again)
Good afternoon, Lulu. The paragraph is a lot more balanced now that several other viewpoints from other religions were added (it seemed awkward from the start to have a section on only the Catholic position, but no one had added any other positions on the matter). Your edit said: Please note: I did not say the Catholic solution was "the" solution; I did say it was the solution that the Catholic Church proposes, which I provided with the appropriate references. "Uphold"--Ok, that sounds doctrinal--do you have any ideas for a better word? As for "Long doctrinal statements"--Ok, the encyclicals are quite lengthy and that can be dropped if you insist. Probably reference to the Catechism is sufficient. Also, what aspects of capitalism does the Catholic Church "endorse"? Please provide references. The Catechism says:
 * (saying Catholic is "solution" is pure POV (likewise "uphold", etc); the vatican links are not "citations" since they link to whole long doctrine statements not specific claims (and refute criticism))
 * 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.206 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."207 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.(emphasis added, also, I tried to get the link to show just this paragraph--it is close enough)

Maybe the sentence should be as follows (following the sentence on Islam and usury):


 * The Roman Catholic Church has "refused to accept, in the practice of 'capitalism,' individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor."

Could you let me know on my talk page? JBogdan 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "solution" is that it is inherently a judgement term. Even if you put an indefinite article—"a solution" even if not "the solution"—it's still stating that the position does solve the "problem". Actually, there's two problems: it both presumes that Capitalism has problems that need solution (not to say I disagree personally, but it's not NPOV), and also that the Catholic approach succeeds. A neutral phrasing would be something like "the Catholic position" or "the Catholic stance"

The sentence you give above looks fine to me. Well, almost. "Refused to accept" still presumes that the Catholic church is in a position (presumably a moral position) to accept or not accept, which is still POV. Maybe something more like:


 * The Roman Catholic Church has "condemned, in the practice of 'capitalism,' individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor."

That sentence looks like it would be fine after the usury thing (once the article is unlocked again). Btw. I agree that whoever added the comparison of several religious criticisms did a good job. LotLE × talk 03:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure we do not quote improperly, should it be:
 * The Roman Catholic Church has condemned, "in the practice of 'capitalism,' individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor."
 * or:
 * The Roman Catholic Church has condemned, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.
 * I can check back later on your talk page or you can leave it on my talk page--either way is fine. JBogdan 20:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, righty. I put the quote in the wrong place in my suggestion.  Your first bullet just above looks best to me.  LotLE × talk  21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Political Philosophers
I bumped into this list, and noticed the problems with Ayn Rand. I posted some research to the talk page about her status or non-status as a philosopher. Hopefully it can add some substance to the back and forth? - Sam 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm intellectually dishonest?
Well, since you have accused me of lying, here's the source for Britannica. Your attack on my character is misguided at best, intentionally dishonest at worst. LaszloWalrus 00:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion on something
Rather than litter up your talk page with a huge essay, I have something I'd like your opinion on. Could you refer to User:Jed S/Sandbox1 if you have time? --JS talk 21:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! I knew it was inappropriate for WP. --JS talk 23:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Communist philosopher
Hi Lulu, should Sartre be described as a "Communist philosopher"? I have my reservations. The debate can be found on the Che Guevara talk page if you are interested (I am not a participant by the way). Cheers.--Zleitzen 11:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Becoming an actor?
I just saw you're relocating temporarily...have fun.--MONGO 15:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

David, could you comment?
..on the statement on the first sentence at Conflict_of_interest ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested
David, MONGO has nominated an RfA for me at Requests for adminship/Doug Bell. I'm not here to solicit your participation, although I welcome it. I just wanted to let you know since I mentioned you specifically in my answers to one of the questions. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. While I wish you the best, I've been (nearly) inactive on WP for the last couple months because of an insanely busy consulting job I'm currently doing in Beverly Hills (away from my sleepy New England home).  So I think it would be slightly unseemly to weigh in either for or against your RfA, not having followed any of your editing behavior in a number of months.  However, it looks from the current votes that you'll be a shoe-in, and I'm sure you'll do an excellent job.  LotLE × talk  15:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Moral equivalence
Hi David. Could you cast your eye over this article - which is almost all original research and often way off the mark. It was on my watchlist in passing - I just took a look at it recently, and it has got worse and worse. --Zleitzen 02:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look. As you are my occasional philosophy contact, I hoped it might interest you. --Zleitzen 09:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck?!?
Some admin deleted the list of dictators article and it had more votes to keep! Afd debate here --Antispammer 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

List of dictators
I'm really annoyed.

After I and you and many others worked hard to make this article truly excellent and indeed an exemplar list on wikipedia, the same people that tried to get the previous list deleted come along a pull a scam like this.

I don't know if the deletion was marked at the top of the page, but I check the article from time to time and didn't notice it. They picket the holiday season when no one was looking, lost the vote, deleted anyhow using the same argument that was explicitly rejected by the community now and before. They gave no notice to the people who were watching the article. Doc Glasgow had previously been involved in the article and should have recused himself anyway. Hundreds of hours of people's time have been deleted on the whim of a admin with in axe to grind.

Carefully worked out criteria, methods of discussion, 120 references, dozens of articles linking in, a fantastic resource.

Again to refute the silly argument made by some that dictator is an "inherently POV" descriptor, simply search wikipedia for the word dictator and notice how many people are described that way. Britannica, Encarta etc all do so, as do all news outlets.

What can we do?

juicifer 13:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Luxemburg Drawing
Hello, Do you have a citation that demonstrates a [WP:V] verifiable source for the claim that the Ward Churchill Luxemburg drawing is by Ward Churchill. Uncle uncle uncle 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Give me a break!? As stated in the image upload, the drawing is from my private collection, is signed by Churchill (as is clearly visible), and was obtained directly from Churchill. LotLE × talk  01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The drawing [] does not say that it is from your private collection, it says that it is from a private collection. A signature is present, but not legible in the uploaded image. Do you have a reliable source WP:RS which states the drawing is by Ward Churchill?

Request for Comment: Verifiability as to the creator of the Rosa Luxemburg drawing
In preparation for an RFC at WP:RFC/BIO on the verifiability of the attribution of the the Rosa Luxemburg drawing to Ward Churchill, I have placed the appropriate section on the page. There is a location available for Statements by editors previously involved in dispute. I have placed this notice on the talk page of the editors previously involved in the dispute to allow time for supplying these comments prior to requesting broad input from the Wikipedia community.

Does the source provided for satisfy the Wikipedia policies and guidelines [WP:RS], [WP:V], and [WP:CITE] to support the claim that the drawing was created by Ward Churchill? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs) 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Sketch-4race-transparent2.png
thumb|200px|Idealized [[normal distribution comparing races and an ethnic group from the U.S. with IQ according to (A graph demonstrating the large difference in sample sizes of the categories given would show curves with dramatically varying heights.) Asian refers to the US English usage. ]]

I thought that your comments here Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_24 were spot-on correct about the graphic used in the article to present 'consensus' of scientists on race an intellegence. I've found inconsistaencies in other parts of the article serise. Especially this graphic.

Could you take a look and let me know what you think? futurebird 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy: world resources and consumption
Could you please look at Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help. Frank van Mierlo 13:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Norm of reaction
Hi Lulu, Thanks for putting up the two png graphs at norm of reaction. However, I think there is a problem with one of them. The one at has its y-axis labeled as "trait scale." While this is the correct label for the other graph's y-axis, it is the wrong label for this graph's y-axis, which in reality represents something more like frequency or probability. Thus, it shouldn't have any label at all. --JianLi 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the intention isn't to represent any sort of probability, but rather a phenotypic trait. Obviously, any collection of organisms, even if monoclonal, will be non-identical in their trait expression, even across the same environment ranges.  But genotype constrains the curves, often pretty closely to the "ideal" (non-fuzzy) lines I draw.


 * For example (to be really flat footed): you might imagine that the trait in question is the height of strains of corn. Not probability or frequency, but just plain centimeters.  The chart with the two bell curves might represent strains A and B, if they are given different pH soils.  In contrast, the other chart likewise graphs strains C and D of corn plants, also across the same pH range.  Trait is measured in centimeters, environment in pH--simple as that.


 * Of course, no corn plants grow at all in pure sulfuric acid, nor in pure lye. So the range in question might be only from 4.0 to 8.0 pH, with all the curves going to zero at both ends past the charted range.


 * At the same time, the two charts might instead represent some other environment scale instead. For example, take the very same corn plants, with height still measure in centimeters.  Maybe the top chart measure A vs. B as acidity varies, but the bottom measures A vs. B as water availability varies.  The same A and B strains might respond differently to different dimensions of envionmental variation... and actually, if you were to create a 2-D surface of these plots, more complex shapes arise (each chart on one dimension represents a slice with fixed value for the other environmental dimension.  LotLE × talk  00:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Race and intelligence
I noticed that you were vocal in debates about the race and intelligence articles earlier. We need your help right now. We're coming very close to revising this article to be something like neutral and only one user is standing in the way! What we need now is an overwhelming show of support from all of the people over the past few years who have complained and criticized this article. We're going to put everything in historical context, so that research some regard as "scientific racism" can't be presented as pure, unquestioned, unbiased science. This will give readers the chance to make up their mind with the appropriate context. Please stop by the talk page and read the section on "moving forward" I hope that you choose to be a part of this.

I know it may bee intimidating and time consuming to sift through all of the warning and banter on this talk page, but I think it is worth the effort. Hope to hear from you! --futurebird 03:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Python add5 syntax.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Python add5 syntax.png, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill as Conspiracy Theorist
Hi Lulu, don't know if you are taking a serious break from editing, but I wanted to call your attention to the ongoing debate at Talk:Ward Churchill (currently in RfC). At issue is whether Churchill should be categorized as a "Conspiracy Theorist". Given your history of level-headed contribution here, your opinion would be helpful. Thanks! - N1h1l 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am indeed taking a pretty serious break. I still use WP all the time anonymously, but only sign in less than once a week; and even then try to avoid looking at my watchlist or any administravia.  Unlike with some past frequent contributors, none of this is about bitterness (yeah, I've seen plenty of pettiness, but it hasn't exactly shocked me to see it)... it's just that I now have an insanely busy job, and cannot sink the time that WP grows to occupy.


 * That said, I did just opine briefly on your obviously correct desire to remove the pejorative "conspiracy theorist" category". 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

vector and raster
This conversation started at

I don't want to continue the thread over at the image for deletion page. The image syntax highlighting image I contributed in raster format has been converted perfectly nicely to vector by someone or another. Actually, of more need are a number of charts and diagrams I've contributed, mostly to biology-related articles (I created them all in vector applications, but at the time, exporting to PNG was the preferred route for WP contribution... I probably don't have time to dig up all my original versions nowadays). My user page lists them, if you want to go through images with a vectorizer (I have Illustrator at work, but again, time is the issue).

But my comment about "downstream uses" isn't just about what web browsers are on handhelds. That was an example, but other uses exist. And actually, what I had in mind was a little project I saw at Wikimania where the WP database was converted into some compressed and optimized format (i.e. not plain HTML/PNG) and stored on a PDA-style device (I think WinCE... yuck, but here just about concepts not implementation). That's not a web browser thing, but something else. Or sites like answer.com that syndicate much WP content might not have the SVG->PNG automation in their backends. Or the one-laptop-per-child project might have different requirements than typical "view WP on the web" usage (FWIW, I work with Alan Kay--passingly--who has helped the project, and hence I saw some early prototypes of the "$100 laptop").

It's a more general issue: Are there GFDL licensees who would benefit from a PNG version of a given file because they cannot (easily) use a SVG for the same purpose? I.e. not just WP itself, but anyone who would validly license the image (except mine are all PD rather than GFDL, but the same idea applies). LotLE × talk 14:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are, they would doubtless implement some sort of SVG viewer or run all the SVGs though a rasterization process before using them. We don't really have to worry about this, though. We use the SVGs because they are flexible not only to us but to downstream users as well. For example, a user might want to take an SVG we render at low-resolution, make some changes, and blow it up to high-resolution for use on a poster. They would be able to do this with ease with an SVG and a quick installation of vector graphics software.


 * So, the benefits we and downstream users gain as a result of using SVGs far outweigh the concerns of lack of mainstream SVG support. Compatible software such as Firefox, the GIMP, and Inkscape is free. If necessary, a downstream user could even obtain a copy of the database and write a program to rasterizate all the SVGs in it at once.


 * SVGs make our lives easier when working with images on Wikipedia. We shouldn't abandon them because a downstream user might have a problem working with them. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard you were trying to take a WikiBreak
Too bad.

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12

Chime in?Yeago 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could You Please Help Me with Ward Churchill

 * I understand that you may have the same issue I have with certain aspects of the Ward Churchill article. Specifically the part dealing with his military service and whether or not he lied about it. It appears that much of the accusations in this reagard come from a right wing radio host called Robert Newman. I have been arguing for over a week now with the user verklempt, but I'm starting to get ganged up on by other users and I need soem back-up.


 * Could you please come to the talk page and give me some back-up. I would really appreciate it.annoynous 00:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)