User talk:LuxNevada

Welcome!

To follow up regarding your comment about links to different Schools at Nevada State College being advertising, I beg to differ. Both UNR and UNLV have links to their schools within the articles and nobody has a problem with it. Please check their sites and tell me what is different about their pages. Thanks! Editcontent (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently edited sections to add full context and also deleted two sections that show poster's bias. If you have problem with this, let's discuss it. I do not think one should bias an article like this with a section on "Low Enrollments" based on a single program that was cut. Many new schools cut programs when they are not working out. This is just good management. NSC's enrollment gains as a total institution have actually been much higher percentagewise than UNLV or UNR. Furthermore, I cut out the misleading biased section about some lenders cutting off their listings at NSC. Lenders all over the country are cutting of their listings of schools all over the country. Inclusion of this material is biased and does not meet the standards applied to other college and university entries. Please see Wikipedia guidelines about bias and neutral POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ousmane3 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoo, hoo. Do you even acknowledge Wikipedia protocol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.96.213 (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter whether it is sourced or not. Sources that include minute or misleading details or inaccurate headings can easily be used to violate neutral POV. Many of the issues you talk about are facing all of the other colleges in the system and I do not see such entries on the UNLV and UNR websites. Please stop your personal grudge. I have asked for mediation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ousmane3 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The college’s student population since 2002 has increased by over 1100 percent." [[1]] They started with 176 students and now have 2,196 students. Not exactly low enrollments there--much higher than NSHE reports of UNLV or UNR (see NSHE BOR tables). It is not that I think this info should be included, but I think the inaccurate misleading info you are peddling should not be. 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ousmane3

Fine. You win. Edit and add at will. Just keep personal information out of this. I wash my hands. 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ousmane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ousmane3 (talk • contribs)

Sparta

Hi - don't worry, even when I do (finally) get around to putting in some work on Sparta, it's not my intention to delete anything that might be useful. Referenced stuff is nearly always useful. Right now the article looks shapeless and confused to me, because of the sheer mass of information on some topics, such as the Spartan constitution, and the near-total lack of information on other stuff, such as the history of Sparta after the rise of the Romans. I don't believe in deleting hard work which people have done, unless it's completely pointless, and it seldom is such. It's more the style and structure of the article that needs work. To pick a random sentence, "Poor knowledge on Spartan traditions is the result of Sparta's secrecy" is not only incorrect English (should be "of Spartan traditions"), it's also a passive construction (should have been something like "The Spartan passion for secrecy means that we have little knowledge of Spartan tradition"). But when you phrase it like that, you can see that the real problem is that it's not true. We actually know quite a lot about Spartan traditions, but we know nearly all of it second-hand from non-Spartan sources because the Spartans were not a literary culture in the way that the Athenians were. But that's a separate issue from their secrecy, which I do not dispute. This is a fairly unusual sentence in the article because it should probably be totally cut. Anyway, I hope that this shows you my rationale for editing the article. I have no intention of butchering it. Lexo (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar, "Race", & Jesus Christ

Thanks, Lux. Indeed, it is a "fine grammatical point" about which I was not sure, so I altered my own phrasing. I will confirm your take on the matter & return the sentence to the "borne" I initially chose (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_of_Jesus&oldid=235861845), if appropriate. As I understand the headstrong American frontiersmen (and women) often said, "one should always trust an original instinct."

[I confirmed your proposition. You are indeed correct. Thanks again for the suggestion.]

sewot_fred (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10.2 Games???

Just to let you know a player can play 10.2 games by playing a fraction of a game resulting in a .2 instead of the whole game equaling 1.0 game.

HairyPerry (Talk) 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flewis page "Strange edits"

Please note my comment added to your discussion on Flewis' talk page. I think you were on board that he is NOT helpful in his reverts and is knowingly harassing it seems.96.246.193.135 (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have changed his talk page to SuperFlewis now, so hopefully this link works - his changing his talk page and name I don't understand.96.246.193.135 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to link to his talk page and he selectively deletes portions of it so here is what I'd posted: You are perhaps being disengenuous as you deleted the following posts from your page and did not resolve the issue, it was only resolved via another admin's talk page. They were as follows, which you deleted each time a post was made. WHAT DID YOU DO???? YOU just reverted a valid, researched edit I did on Salem Chalabi article, which I discussed/stated cause for in discussion page, w/a kneejerk reversion that hid my researched changes.96.224.32.254 (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You then reverted my above edit! Here's the rest I posted/you posted on the talk page you created for me WHAT DID YOU DO???? YOU just reverted a valid, researched edit I did on Salem Chalabi article, which I discussed/stated cause for in discussion page, w/a kneejerk reversion that hid my researched changes.

If for some oddball reason you disagreed w/the edit (updating information and clarifying name listing) you SHOULD have put that in the discussion page - there was nothing "unconstructive" even facially about the edit if you were knowledgeable of the subject, which you should be to automatically HIDE an edit and CHANGE it. 96.224.32.254 (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:COI and WP:VAN for more info on this subject, and, before inserting biased comments in the article you need to gain consensus on the talk page. Simply leaving a comment and then changing the article will not suffice. --Flewis(talk) 04:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What is possibly biased about reviewing the public data on the website previously discussed in the discussion and/or history and updating the page based on the updated information. If you want, you could list Chalabi as previously listed as delinquent but since re-registered, that's your call. What I did was update w/public info and list that - nothing biased pro-Chalabi (or against) there.96.224.32.254 (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The sites that you list have absolutely NO bearing on my edit. (Shame on you appears to be in order)96.224.32.254 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC) 96.224.32.254 (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)96.246.193.135 (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.193.135 (talk)

I am a bit mystified why this discussion is taking place on my talk page as I am neither 96.246.193.135 nor Flewis. LuxNevada (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you posted a discussion to Flewis' talk page in which you accused him of poor editing and he "explained" why he doesn't and I noted that, indeed, he does, and I posted a since deleted on his page (but/therefore replaced on yours) response, as your final post (which he kept) on his page said, in essence, oh thanks for explaining I was wrong you're great. He is as you and others noted, constantly posting false vandalism notes and reverts in "split seconds" and he DOESN"T resolve all. I'm surprised you had to ask, I guess you post a lot too and it's hard to keep up w/your own discussions! (frankly I think you should change your last post to him accepting his explanation - and see how he deleted my posts re his work)71.190.64.215 (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have noticed but Flewis apologized to me. He wrote "Apologies for the inconvenience." It is polite to accept an apology and move on. Please take your discussion to his talk page which you can find here [[2]]. LuxNevada (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told you I took my discussion to his talk page from the first (as I've quoted you above) and he kept deleting it after I posted, bit by bit - ie, he's kept other comments and just deleted mine w/no response - not in the wiki spirit and exactly what your original post accused him of, which is why I thought I'd alert you (it's verifiable in his page's history). Just b/c he apologized to you (actually you apologized to him after he told you of 6000 edits he's only had some 6(?) queries, which, since he deleted mine, is clearly false. Your end of "happy editing" thanks for explaining indicated to me you should know more and ask why he deleted my post, which was equal to the many others questioning his WRONG and fast and loose reverts and vandalism accusations; ie, you were right on in your original post - I am sorry you are having trouble understanding this, I truly thought it was clear from my first post to you if it was read through, and if there is confusion ask that you read it again. If you are merely saying you accept his statement that of 6000 edits he is causing no harm, you are mistaken, I had to waste a lot of effort trying to legitimately edit an article and was emotionally hurt, especially by the deletion of my queries on his page and his keeping others. I hope you understand now and see how your "all resolved, happy editing" is sending the wrong message to this editor - review his talk page again and add a reference to my deleted info to it; you'll do a service to update your post or alert an admin, I can't seem to find how to do that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.173.108 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 96.224.173.108 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Few things that you should think about:

If you wish to be taken seriously in Wiki, get yourself a username. IP addresses don't get the same respect.
Flewis seems to be a reasonable guy. He tries speed deleting vandalism and makes mistakes once in a while. But he admits that he made mistakes, so best to move on.
You seem like a smart guy and write well. Maybe you should think about whether this is the life you really want, arguing with me who is only very tangentially involved in this matter. I have gone through life with similar internet addictions and realized I was wasting my time. I am sure you can find much better use for your time.

Peace, LuxNevada (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sentiment; however, I wouldn't call editing a few articles and following up on the responses an internet addiction, and I oppose the notion of distinctual treatment of usernames or #'s - they are both people and deserve equal respect in my view; Flewis did NOT concede he made an error in my case, he merely kept deleting my posts to his page, it was another editor who posted that he was in error; also, Wiki is genderless - I too assumed Flewis a male and you I wasn't sure of; as a # I am truly genderless on line, which is fine w/me, it bespeaks the same equality and respect of names and numbers, genders, professions, etc. What I had asked was for you to assist me in raising a valid point that many raised, undeleted, on Flewis/superflewis (he seems to have changed his username?) page. I am sorry you neglected to do so, but appreciate your not deleting my post and refusing to reply; to me, what Flewis did is wrong and he is hurting alot of people and edits and I am sorry you wouldn't flag the issue and accepted his phoney "apologia" that he gets few complaints, they can't be avoided. But I've stated my case fully and succinctly and if you can't help me out w/an admin, I'll just wait for someone else to eventually stop his destructive behavior on line, if anyone bothers. Peace.96.224.173.108 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helots

Hi. I don't understand your last edits on this article. 'Dependent' is a frequently used term in History for the myriad of unfree statuses that used to exist, but that cannot be reduced to straight chattel slavery, such as Medieval serfs or Penestae. Please try "dependent status" or "dependent labour" on Google and see. This has nothing to do with children. A word can have several meanings.

In Ancient Greece, the shedding of blood caused religious pollution. Cartledge writes on this matter: "the Ephors declared war annually on the Helots – a typically Spartan expression of politically calculated religiosity designed to absolve in advance from ritual pollution any Spartan who killed a Helot" (Sparta and Lakonia, pp.141–142). By comparison, in Attic law, the suit brought against the killer of a slave was a dikē phoinikē, demanding punishment for the religious pollution brought by the shedding of blood (see Slavery in Ancient Greece#Athenian slaves). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by you I googled "dependent status". Nothing on the first page remotely matched the meaning you want it to convey. In an introduction it is better to use language a layman will understand, you can get more "complex" in the body of the article. Similar argument for "religious pollution". The first thing that comes to mind when one murders another, is whether the murderer was punished, not whether the murderer suffered "religious pollution". LuxNevada (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Still, I think we should try to explain from the beginning the inferior status of the Helots. Perhaps "Helots were an unfree population that formed," etc.? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits. They seem right. LuxNevada (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]