User talk:Diza/Jan07-April08

Arguments for and against drug prohibition

I agree with your idea of sprotecting this article. however you didn't actually protect it. I sprotected it for 2 weeks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

cool. what is it that needed doing?

"Revert. good intro, yet needs to be rephrased to sound less rantish, and less POVed. and with a better grammer."

"BETTER GRAMMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Grammer! Hahahahahahahahaha! Amateur! ;-]] Keithbowden (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

..? rantish, and poved are'nt real words too. look at the concepts being phrased, don't obsesse with irrelevancies. if you are a native english speaker, please correct any typo's or grammar mistakes.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sentience Quotient

I read the sentience quotient piece - I am intrigued to learn if subtle differences in physiology [/metabolism e.g.] caused by nourishment & well-being determine 'peaking' levels of sentience??

The basic architecture of the human brain is bio-carbon based, which constitute our order of magnitude of informational processing per mass. smarter people have the same architecture, thus having the same SQ, which is on a logarithmic scale.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles worth while reading

You should have a warning on these about the horribly long chain of interesting articles you will end up reading if you follow the links. I really enjoyed them though. Lonjers 09:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 16:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ipu.gif

Hello, Diza. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Ipu.gif) was found at the following location: User:Diza. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Nameadog p1-1-.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nameadog p1-1-.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 07:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

help me understand — Law of attraction

Can anyone help me understand why is this method of manifesting not 100% selection bias ? --Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on this defines selection bias as: "... a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data is collected." I would agree that the Law of Attraction is 100% selection bias if one's context is science. It is not though. First, as far as I can find, science has not studied this and, second, it is really a philosophy or theology. Belief in LOA has arisen via individuals claiming they see LOA at work in their personal observation of their personal experience. As much some would like to, one really can't apply the scientific method to personal observations of one's own personal experience. Does it really make sense to say I am liking vanilla ice cream because of selection bias? A better explanation for what is going on is, Propositional attitude. —WikiLen 05:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. Believeing with all my heart, and feeling like I have already accomplished things, such as wanting to wake up a different sex, or grow a third arm WILL NOT MAKE IT SO.

assuming Satan is after me, and interpreting everything in a paranoid mystic fashion will be consistent with my observation, as I have changed what is my ongoing recollections from ANY event.

Moreover, purely wishing something WILL NOT make it so. I have to find a appropriate path of hacking into life, utilizing my knowledge in order to manifest reality.

So this seems to only be of any use, when going through life screening people and not holding grudges. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 08:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There are people who argue that your thoughts can actually affect physical reality, directly, not just through your own physical actions. That's what the LoA claims. Proponents of the LoA believe that wishing it will make it so. If you wish to understand why they believe this, psychology is the field of study to get involved in. Bhimaji 03:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So, believing I will grow a third arm, in all my heart will make it so? why are'nt there ANY proofs of unbelievable dids? The Randi Prize for 1,000,000$ is still waiting for more than 20 years now for these sorts of acts.. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In New Thought circles, your test would be thrown out. The wish is obviously not being driving by a deeply felt desire for the third arm to grow—feeling is very important. The LoA is not easly testable, if at all, as it requires being able to measure internal feelings and thoughts. Any test that fails could just be described as a failure to have a genuine, full-out feeling that you will get what you want or a failure to think about it free of doubt — both correct feeling and correct thought are required. There is no defeating the logic of New Thought just as their is no defeating the logic of any religion. Read the article on Propositional attitude. —WikiLen 05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it is not falsifiable. Yet, do they really believe I can get ANYTHING I want? no matter how many arms, had I been a true believer?

Or are there limits to these miracles? Personally, I find this kind of metaphysics dangerous and deleterious to one's personal gain.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My observation is that the essence of LoA is that if you completely surrender to the feelings that physically arise from your whole being then those feelings will not lead you astray. If it feels like your are going to ace an exam then you ace the exam. If if feels like you are going to accomplish your dream then you accomplish your dream. The key thing is no thought is placed on the feelings to filter them or control them, not even a thought that something is logically impossible. One completely trusts the feelings as a barometer of what is possible. The film, The Secret, seems to be trying to trick the system while at the same time realizing that such is not possible. That is trying to have thoughts control feelings, rather than feelings lead thoughts. Feelings are the Rosetta stone, the holy grail. The notion the universe is my genie is really an appeal to feelings not thoughts. The LoA position that one is omnipotent gets the thought-monkey off the back of one's feelings. The goal is not to think anything is possible but to feel anything is possible. —WikiLen 15:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do KNOW that anything is possible. and I also feel it. (I had huge changes in my personal life in the past few months..).

Y-E-T, life is hacking, and as such one must use his ingenuity in order to physically manifest changes in order to convey the latter manifestation of his priveous dream. Not doing anything towards this manifestation other than dreaming about it is a dangerous idea to sell poeple. Feeling like you have already accomplished it, drag's one motivation for understanding reality and changing it with actions even more.

The Fact that nothing metaphyical was ever observed to be happening , could be explained by nobody Trully feeling like getting a third arm. This "law" completely misses the point. The point being the selection one makes to his various sensory inputs, conversations and actions because of his previous belief in his dream. A semi-random conversation may take different turns had one of them been dreaming about his goal constantly, thus creating new "chance like/magic like" opportunities.

Sitting around your room, believing that the firefighters are gonna break any second, WILL eventually make them come...a few weeks later, to collect your rotting smelly corpse... :)

The time to manifestation is growing shorter with each technological leap, yet as still corporal being, we still must act in order to manifest.. believing anything else because of the monetizing power for people's hopes and dreams will bring nothing but retroactive firefighters.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 09:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... —WikiLen 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Audio Junkies

I deleted the page because it was marked for speedy deletion. If you can rewrite the page so it reads less like blatant advertising, you can restart the page. I would advise that you create it in a subpage of your userspace, for example here, ask some people what they think of it and whether it is still speedily deletable, and create it again. If you wish, I can put the deleted content in your userspace for you, and you can work on it there. Regards, ~ Riana ⁂ 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do it here.

Fair use rationale for Image:Nameadog_p1-1-.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nameadog_p1-1-.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Passive smoking

I'd like to invite you to the talk page on passive smoking, and to participate in my POV project if you are interested (more info on the talk page). Chido6d 15:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings.

You gave no reason for your revert, claimed rationale in a a general discussion page, and gave a bad link.to link

I dropped the Npov tag (you may discuss it in the talk page), and reverted back to the accurate wording. there's a sub section discussing this specific edit in the talk page, we can go on from [[1]].

Thanks --Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

coolness...

i saw your link on a biomedical gerentology page, wich is my intrest, and read your user/talk page, and i think your a cool kat, : ) if you had a myspace.. id be your friend. viva la 'information' revolution Roy Stanley (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks, transhumanism rocks. albeit the information revolution, I got a facebook, and so do you... --Procrastinating@^talk2me 18:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Katzen1.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Katzen1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam warning in Arguments for and against drug prohibition

Hi. I don't know what you mean when you say "spam" because I haven't put any links there, or promoted any website. As for the removal of material, if you'd read my edit summaries you'd see that I wasn't removing material because I disagreed with it but because it was unsupported original research. Huge sections of unsupported high school essay-type arguments seriously compromise the quality of that article. We are under no obligation to keep content on wikipedia that lacks reliable sources; add it back when you've found a source.--Loodog (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

they were OR by your standard, the OR is a general guide line, not an excuse to trunc an article that took the community months to write out of a single sided wym. if you disagree with a specific statement, you are welcome to replace, expand or even remove it. what you did, by removing about 30% of the article in a single edit session, might be considered harmful. an argument is an argument, if you beleive it to false or unworthy, you can always reedit it. blunt removal of information goes against the heart and core of wikipedia. I do agree, that some of the material is not in a high enough quality, I hope you understand --Procrastinating@^talk2me 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material goes against the heart and core of wikipedia. And it has nothing to do with my standard. If sources don't exist, no viewpoint can see them. You write that it took the community months to write as if there had been any scholarly research put into it, rather than someone with free time going, "well I bet no one considered this idea".--Loodog (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

See also: WP:V "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."--Loodog (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw, and I do concur. again, these are guide lines, not strict rules and laws, defently not a deletionist excuse.. and in this specific article there were no made up factoids, rather "arguments for and against..". Arguments, by their definition, are not and can not be OR. In this kind of unique article, one may, however, attribute an argument to some external source, and even argue about it's interpretation or significance. please, help people be bold, your stringiness is needed and appreciated in many other articles. thank you. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 00:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR says original research "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". This means half of that article.--Loodog (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedantic. I see that you are simply not listening or replying to my points. Let me be clearer, A single person erasing 50% of an article he did not help create, that was crafted by hundreds of people during years of research as SPAM, and you will be blocked if retried. Your rationale/excuse is not under consensus.(I bet you can find a quote for that too). please use the article talk page to raise your concerns, and your solution by erasing half of what's there. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 08:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, what are you talking about? You said, as justification for including the unsourced arguments on that page "Arguments, by their definition, are not and can not be OR." I replied with a guidelines showing that arguments can be and often are OR. This is not listening or responding to your points? Next thing I will listen and respond to: me removing "50% of an article [I] did not help create", which I didn't do, but I'll address the second piece anyway. Wikipedia does not have ownership of articles. Working on an article gives you no preferential right to edit it later. As for the quantity of people and the amount of time spent, I've addressed this already: the time spent was not on real research, but on the fabrication and expression of personal viewpoints. Also, to clarify, when I said "half the article", I did not literally mean half of it; I meant that just too damn much of the page is occupied with this crap.--Loodog (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Look. I am a scientist by trade and education, and I agree that crowd sourcing may not always be the best method to gather bullet proof information. Yet. It is almost always better than peer reviewed research, as can be seen in the history of the Wikipedia it self.(Nupedia). The same goes for articles that are opt for deletion by a single person, after 10 others thought it relevant enough to put their attention into it. (such as train station articles, etc). One person's irrelevant data, is another person's truth, that has nothing to do with OR.

When a person edits an article, subtracting or rephrasing information, the community revises him for common consensus. The community being mostly people who have edit it extensively, regardless of ownership. I find it very disrespectful to them and their work to come out of the blue, and with a single edit trunc an article in "half". an edit based on a solo decision that "50%" of an article is not worthy (for any reason), and simply remove it. I regard it as spam of the most common breed.

Your rationale, may have merits even in this article of unique content, and those have to be discussed in the talk page. I heed this explanation, mainly because of your alleged conflicts with other wikipedians and admins. I thank you for your time and understanding. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 11:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I believe, my friend, that you have a false impression of two things:

• How wikipedia works. The core policy of "verifiability, not truth" states that wikipedia, as it's been set up, values peer-reviewed reliable sources over personal arguments (original research). If you would like a wiki that is based on personal arguments, you've come to the wrong place.
• What spam is. I don't know what you're accusing me of. Having an agenda? Making bold edits? If it's the latter, you're accusing me of acting in rigorous adherence to a wikipedia core policy.

Again, if you want a wiki where people defer editing out of respect for time commitments for others, you've come to the wrong place. My edits are made to put the article in line with the core policies of wikipedia, irrespective of who put the violating material in, in the first place. If people disagree with my interpretations of what fits with wikipedia guidelines, then I discuss it on the talk page. Never refrain from editing out of fear that someone might object to it. You make the change, and discuss it if it's not agreed upon.--Loodog (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I too adhere to wikipedia core principals, having wrote some of them. Big words dont impress me. "peer reviewed" and "reliable sources" are just that. words. Words which you took the liberty to over extrapolate and subjectively judge content by. Each and every argument in this article can be attributed to this or other source over the net. Now, is that source "reliable"? that is a matter of consensus of the writing community. Is it "peer reviewed"? from the digital sources around the net, wikipedia is probably the most peer reviewed site in existence. It's a matter of leveraged consensus from previous contents. this is what "peer reviewed scientific articles" means, the consensus of a group of people that the mainstresm accept, more than other consensuses. A consensus which you disrespected by eliminating half the article, that was edited by thousands.

On a positive note, One should make his claim, put "cite" tags if needed, and gradually revise a better version. I agree with you, There are many "freely interpreted" factoids that may need to be revised to correspond better to the NPOV policy, and some of them might even be dubious. address These issues, don't flush the baby with the water. :) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 11:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)