User talk:Psychobabble

The Queen Vs Carroll[edit]

Curses, you beat me to it :P

I'll poke around in my notes from back when it was a current issue and see what more I can add, although it looks impressive to start with. BigHaz 04:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. It's good that someone's interested to see it there :) Add/edit what you can... Psychobabble

Not so much "interested to see it there" as much as "it's all coming back to me". Far too many teachers trying to use the case to prove this and that at the time. While I'm at it, the article currently lists the baby as "Diedre", "Deirdre" and "Deidre". Since I can't find anything on the actual spelling. Google tends to say "Deidre", so I'll run through and change it to that. BigHaz 05:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, have you taken a look at the articles that I wrote on William Spence, H.C. Coombs and John Dunmore Lang? If so, is your opinion that there was anything illegitimate in the sections deleted by Adam Carr? --Herschelkrustofsky 03:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have had a look at those articles. I don't know enough about the figures to really comment, but I probably fall somewhere between Carr and yourself on this one. Some of the quotes and adjectives seem excessive but the wholesale deletions that Carr is doing seem a little over the top. However, I do understand Carr's caution, I remember the draft version of the LaRouche page which I believe you were mostly responsible for and even to an outsider with little knowledge of the situation it was terribly biased (even if unintentionally so). I also have some understanding of how fringe-group history works (libertarian, socialist, religions/creationist) and they tend to provide very unreliable overviews of the past - I'm sure LaRouch has his own mythology and I can understand Carr no wanting it to end up in Wikipedia wholesale. In short, I understand Carr's overall concerns with your edits, but I don't think I agree with his wholesale deletions. Psychobabble 22:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reginald Maudling[edit]

Would you now reconsider your vote for featured atricle on Reginald Maudling 213.122.195.196 13:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Duran Duran[edit]

Likewise, could you please give some feedback on whether WP:FAC candidate Duran Duran has been improved to featured standard? Thanks, [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 02:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you're still interested, but I have added the section you requested (during the FAC discussion) about the influence of DD on others -- feel free to add NPOV if I've missed the mark. I also expanded the list of influences ON Duran at the beginning of the 1978-1980 section. Thanks again08:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

US constution POV[edit]

Your sticky POV fingerprints are all over a few of US constitution articles I've recently read. I put an NPOV dispute on the most egregious of them (Restoring the Lost Constitution), and cleaned up commerce clause and Morission a little. I'm sure you realise your opinion on the interpretation of the constitution isn't universally held and in some cases (as I noted on the talk page of commerce clause) I don't even think it's valid. Please be a bit careful with obvious POV writing on these topics. Psychobabble 00:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm always happy to hear suggestions for improvement but your comment here is pretty vague. I've tried to figure out what you mean by looking at your edits to the three mentioned pages, but judging from them it appears you are the one who is mistaken. For example, I don't see how saying that the Morrison case "established limits" to the commerce clause is a point of view. I know of many who dislike these limits and some who like them, but both sides agree that they are, in fact, limits, as both the opinion and dissent in the case stated.

By contrast, you added to an article claims that Randy Barnett is a strict originalist, in line with conservatives, opposed to judicial activism, and opposed to the activism of the Court, all of which would be blatantly POV if they weren't so obviously false (e.g. during his book tour Barnett repeatedly explained why judicial activism was a good thing).

On the other hand, many of your changes to Commerce clause are indeed improvements to some of my more careless writing. As to your question of fact on the matter, I am no expert, but it seems one could argue the Court expanded the scope of the commerce clause beyond what it was widely understood to encompass. Evidence for this would include the changing definitions of interstate commerce and that fact that in cases like Wickard v. Filburn[1], the appeals court had to be overruled. However, one really needs a legal historian for such a matter. AaronSw 06:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First I apologise for my erroneous facts in my re-writes on the Restoring the Lost Constitution page. I hadn't heard of the authour, I was (badly, obviously) extrapolating from what had been written there. I maintain that they style I was aiming at is more appropriate for the page, see my comments on the discussion page there.

Second, my problem with the first paragraph of Morisson wasn't NPOV related, it was a question of legal procedure. No single case could ever be "the" defining case on any particular question of law, especially on something as broad as the commerce clause. Cases also never set strict limits, they are decided on the question before the court, and they subsequently become precedent, but that doesn't mean following cases will follow the dicta exactly.

My biggest NPOV problem was with the commerce clause page. As it stood, it was telling a story. It used adjectives like "even" repeatedly to draw a picture of activist "federal intervention proponents" interpreting the clause in an impossibly broad way, a line which was only reversed with the seemingly welcome intervention from Lopez. That was the story I got from reading the lost constitution page, and then that was the story being told on the commerce clause. I got the impression this was your opinion (which may be perfectly valid, I'm no constitutional expert) and that this opinion was being inserted (wittingly or not) into consitution related articles. I haven't read any others besides those related to the commerce clause, so I should have done so before accusing you of systematic bias. Sorry. Psychobabble 07:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Diagram request[edit]

I have drawn and uploaded the diagram that you requested. It is called Prospect_theory_small.png A larger diagram is also available if you need it. I have added it to the article. Let me know if you want modifications. mydogategodshat 23:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's brilliant, thanks! Sry for the late reply, haven't been on wiki for a while... Psychobabble 05:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian law[edit]

Hi there, just thought I'd let you know that a few of us have started a new project to organise all things to do with Australian law, and SilasM thought that you might be interested in joining. You have quite a few good pages there, it'd be good to have a few more contributors! --bainer 13:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez[edit]

Hi Physchobabble,

Would you check out my new version at Hugo Chavez? I don't think all NPOV issues are shaken out, but I think that the "narrative" you were talking about is significantly reduced. I have also been adding a bunch of facts and trying to reshape them into a coherent structure. Do you think the new version is an improvement?

DanKeshet 04:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Daytona 500 and Indy 500 in 2005, why not?[edit]

So I see you removed the Daytona 500 and the Indy 500, but yet the Kentuckey Derby and the Super Bowl are included? What qualifies for notable inclusion on the 2005 page? The Daytona 500, is the Super Bowl event for NASCAR, and the Indy 500 has been around longer then the Super Bowl, but yet the Indy 500 is not included? Srcrowl 21:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise the super bowl and kentuckey derby were there. I'll remove them now. Annual sporting events aren't included as a general rule.Psychobabble 21:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank your for your response and your action, that is all I asked, I'm glad to see fairness across the board. Srcrowl 22:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I had removed them before, but people tend to slip them back in and I miss it occasionally. I've put a note on it in the talk page. Psychobabble 22:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Penal damages[edit]

Aren't these just the flip side of liquidated damages, though? -- BD2412 ^talk 02:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for your interest - your contributions would be most welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 02:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

They're certainly related to liquidated damages, but I think it's important that they get their own page as it is one of the few absolute prohibitions on the scope of contracting. Two parties cannot contract to punish one of them in the event of breach over and above a reasonable calculation of damages. Hmmmmm, you might be right about incorporating them in one page, it's just that penal clauses were covered seperately in our class. You can make the judgement, I hadn't thought through the connection too well. As for joining Project Law, I don't have as much time for Wiki as I would like. You'll see on my main page that I had (and have) great plans to write up a whole lot of important HC decisions, but I just haven't got around to it. I'll fill in bits and pieces as I get the chance, but probably can't contribute meaningfully to a big project. I certainly won't be able to do anything on the scale of standard form contracts again. Psychobabble 01:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

talk:limit theorem[edit]

Could you please respond at talk:limit theorem. Really, your comments seem incredibly confused: you're simply not distinguishing between a STATEMENT OF a theorem and a PROOF OF a theorem. Your comments so far on that page are not even remotely credible. Michael Hardy 14:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and now I've moved the page. The title was grossly inappropriate considering which pages linked to it. Michael Hardy 21:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raich[edit]

Got your message. I'll look into Raich.Jimmuldrow 06:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Edgeworthprocess1.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Edgeworthprocess1.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Chowbok ☠ 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More replaceable fair use images[edit]

—Chowbok ☠ 04:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Generalequilbrium.JPG[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Generalequilbrium.JPG. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year page formatting of multiple events[edit]

Hello, I'm sending you this message since you were involved in the August 2005 survey on year pages. As I don't know if you've gathered, somebody has been fighting for a change to the house style on how to notate multiple events on the same date. A discussion is currently in progress - your contribution would be appreciated! -- Smjg (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money Illusion[edit]

Hey PB, Nice work with the money illusion article. I have a question/request for you about it, you wrote:

Some have suggested that money illusion implies that the negative relationship between inflation and unemployment described by the Phillips curve curve might hold, contrary to recent macroeconomic theories.

Would you be able to add which recent macroeconomic thoeries (or schools) don't think the Phillips curve is true? Otherwise it's a bit vague. Thanks in advance. --I (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne meetup[edit]

Hey all, just a reminder that there's a meetup tomorrow at 11am in North Melbourne. There are more details at the meetup page. Hope to see you tomorrow! SteveBot (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup invitation: Melbourne 26[edit]

Melbourne Meetup

Next: 6 January 2013 at La Trobe City Campus
Previous: 25 November 2012

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 07:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Victoria)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]