User talk:LSD

SUL

Confirmation!

Done, as far as fr: is concerned. Cheers, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 07:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeping changes to monopoly and related articles

I reverted your redirection of Monopolization, because I think it is separate enough of a concept to warrant its own page (it is a legal claim which is distinct from the concept of monopoly). I haven't reverted any of your other changes yet, but I don't know why you made such broad changes without at least starting a talk-page discussion first. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 06:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more appropriate as a part of the monopoly page, rather than as an article describing a particular US law. There's already a law section on the monopoly page (albeit a very rudimentary one). Maybe it could be merged there?

As for the changes to the actual monopoly page, they weren't actually that broad. I moved the history section down and reorganized the economics section, but I didn't actually add or delete any information. The page still needs a lot of work!

LSD (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in looking over the two pages, I think you may be right. Monopolization as a specific legal charge does deserve a separate article from laws on monopolies in general. Right now, though, it's a very US-centric page. Do you know if monopolization exists as such as a criminal offense in other jurisdictions, and if so, whether it is defined similarly / differently to the US version? In any case, good call on the revert. LSD (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different countries use different terminology and often different economic concepts in their competition laws. I'm not sure if any other countries specifically consider "monopolization" or "attempted monopolization" offenses; likewise, the same offense may be defined differently or called by another name outside the U.S. So I can't really answer that question. I suppose if there are any foreign lawyers on this site, they can add this information. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 01:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Market dominance

Sorry to bother you, but you merged the Market dominance exactly the opposite way as was tagged (Dominance (economics) into Market dominance and not Market dominance into Dominance (economics)). I think Dominance (economics) would be actually a better name for the new only article.--Kozuch (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LSD (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Tibetan

Hi,

Could you add your source to File:SinoTibetanTree.svg? It looks more or less like Matisoff, but not exactly what I remember.

Thanks, kwami (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's primarily based on Thurgood & LaPolla (obviously very simplified), which mostly comes from Matisof, yes. LSD (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Goodnight, Irene has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. --Rrburke(talk) 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I both summarized and explained that edit. Do you have reason to believe that those lyrics actually are public domain? 'Cause if not, I don't see why you reverted. LSD (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was a simple-enough error, which I see you've corrected. The edit was made using Huggle, a semi-automated counter-vandalism tool which employs the Wikimedia IRC recent changes feed to help interested users detect and revert vandalism, and to place standardized notices on users' talk pages when vandalism is suspected.

That's pretty much what I figured.

Removals of content accompanied by only vague edit summaries not specifying the rationale for the removal are easily mistaken for vandalism. In cases where an editor removes content due to a policy concern, it is helpful, for clarity's sake and to assist editors monitoring recent changes for vandalism, to cite in the edit summary the policy in question -- which in this case was Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The content of WP:Songs#Lyrics is not Wikipedia policy; WP:Songs is a WikiProject. --Rrburke^(talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although since not every edit is due to a policy concern it still strikes me as imprudent to automatically revert any deletion without first checking the talk page. But, whatever, no harm done. LSD (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anxiety disorder

Hi -- I just want to compliment you on your work on that article, which has made it flow a lot more smoothly. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

great addition to DSM

a useful tag ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlypsychosis (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 March 2009

You're talking to the wrong guy. I fixed up the criticism section 'cause it was disorganized, not 'cause I agreed with it ideologically; I don't actually have any strong feelings on the DSM, one way or the other. That said, I certainly don't dispute the "concept of mental health diagnosis", nor do I find anything problematic in accepting the existance of mental illness "without question". LSD (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the great improvement to DSM. It has been tagged as a controversial issue, and any rewrite to the criticism section is necessary to maintain a NPOV, and the article problably needs more to make it balanced. I also dont have an issue with DSM or diagnosis per se, and dont dispute the concept of mental health diagnosis - but do observe that these are often presented on wikipedia without question and acknowlegement that it is simply a point of view. Many wikipedia articles on mental health conditions seem to be rewrite of DSM criteria. There was also no suggestion in my comment about not accepting the existance of mental illness. The focus is on improving Wikipedia to show WP:NPOV. Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to DSM

Hi LSD,

I have question regarding your recent changes to DSM, which I raised here. Also, please use edit summaries. Thanks, Xasodfuih (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Berman Article

I am informing an administrator of our difficulties and that you have continuously reverted edits to the neutrality of the article for a period of over a few months now. No matter how much puffery you add to your comments, that section is too long for the rest of the article, has weasel words, and is very biased. This is your last warning. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think I've made a grand total of two major edits to that page, over a period of... well, ever. But thanks for the "warning"; God knows someone has to stop all this "puffery" going on. ;)

Seriously, though, I don't know why you're getting so worked up over this. If you don't like the section, fix it! LSD (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water Fasting

What do you think about un-merging the water fasting and current fasting page? I'd be happy to help with a more specific water fasting page. Mindsite (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Canadian Ivy League

An article that you have been involved in editing, Canadian Ivy League, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ivy League (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Labattblueboy (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-European language tree

I have corrected your last upload of the image since, I did not know where you got the idea that Macedonian is mixture of BG and SR, it was false. Please, since you edit the chart more often, do not let such major mistakes. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Tibetan tree (Thurgood and La Polla, 2003)

Howdy! I really appreciate your having made a ST family tree. If there's any chance you'd tweak it, might I recommend checking out the (lower right hand) Western Tibeto-Burman? Newar language (Nepal Bhasa) appears to the left in Himalayan, and to the right in Bodic. I'm pretty sure there aren't two languages with the same name, but I'm even surer I haven't read Thurgood and LaPolla (2003) and so can't fix it myself. I also wondered if they were alternative groupings, and might deserve a shading difference. If it's not an error at all, please just let me know. I'll watch here for your advice. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]