Posts by James Green
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Slightly off-topic, but related to child-rearing and correlation/causation....
There was a fantastically bizarre letter in the ODT the other day. The write appeared to be arguing that children had always been lazy and eaten bad food, thus the current obesity epidemic was a result of corporal punishment. -
I'm sure Helen Clark and Russell Norman will be pleased to know tobacco companies are verboten
That really depends on how long a bow you wish to draw.
Superfund owns GPG. GPG completed a reverse merger with Brunel (to acquire large wodge of tax write-offs). Brunel once made tobacco processing machinery.
http://www.advfn.com/news_Recommended-Merger_3531311.html
Although, maybe that the tobacco processing machinery downturn was the cause of their tax losses.
-
Ahh - so that makes some sense then.
Is then the main article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup
If so, that makes more sense.
That's still not quite an article (although it is more formal). You'll see it still has "project page" at the top left. As a rule if it has a colon in the url, then it is not an article. The "Wikipedia:" means it's a project page, "Talk:" makes it a talk page, and there are also Category, Template, and Image pages (probably among others).
-
what I don't understand is how this wiki article does NOT get deleted
Because it is not an "article". If you see 2 tabs to the left of "edit this page" where is says "project page". If you look at Kiwi Foo Camp you'll see that it says article. And it sort of stands to reason. After all, you'll see that the AFD page also says "project page", and also isn't an article. Same with talk pages, user pages etc. There also exist template and category pages, which also don't abide by the same rules as article pages.
As an aside, there are some fairly erudite essays on how Wikipedia is becoming totally overrun by bureaucracy and/or vandals and people with barrows to push. (Disc: there are also some really stupid and poorly thought out ones).
-
the keener WP editors often seem to be exclusionist.
I've wondered whether this is because with the number of articles possibly increasing exponentially, it becomes harder to ensure that people notice stupid stuff being added. And believe me, there is a lot of stupid stuff added.
I also struggle a little bit with the detailed sourcing thing, because it's not something you do in journalism
That may be partly in response to the libellious nature of the servers' home turf. However, on the other hand, I'm finding it harder to read mainstream journalism, because of the lack of sourcing. I was immensely frustrated this morning that it took me probably almost 45min to track down a recent journal article that was commented (but not referenced) in the herald. I admit that part of the problem was that I found other interesting stuff on the way.
Also, I'm increasingly sceptical of things that I read, and if I can't check the source, then I can't be sure if I believe it. And then I read things I know about, and see statements that are dubious, or at best horrible generalizations, and it drives me nuts. Hell, it's one of the reasons why I love Hard News. At least I can see for myself where the info is coming from. -
Actually, it appears it may be OK to speedy the same thing twice "if the prior deletions were proposed or speedy deletions, although in this last case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply." (criteria for speedy deletion, g4, recreating deleted material).
On a more mundane level, it being called foo camp probably doesn't help either....
-
And I don't think even the relatively brief original text met the listed standard for speedy deletion of "patent nonsense, advertising, pure vandalism" or "utter rubbish".
Umm, the two words preceding your quote there are "for example" : )
If you go to the full list of speedy criteria, you'll see under "Articles" #7. Personally, I think it's a bit of a pisser, but it is there.I agree with Evan's police comparison. There are some people who spend all day doing "cleaning" jobs. Going through and deleting what they consider to be irrelevant or too commercial links, and judging by their contributions, they spend an amount of time doing that sort of stuff. It's somewhat ironic that they would see themselves as an enforcer, but then to break policy. However, I think that's why the police analogy might work.
On a more meta-level, there appears to be a weird extent to which spending a lot of time doing that sort of thing appeals to a certain group. Either because they feel they're helping the community, get a kick out of it, or whatever. I also think that doing anti-vandalism-esque stuff seems to be a bit of a pre-req for getting noticed (and maybe on to becoming an administrator etc.). I'm not entirely sure, but it does also seem to be a bit of a domain of younger males.
-
Tariana appears to been using the reknowned statistical consulatants Coddington & Co.
Firstly, she talks of a growing Maori middle class. The graphs here speak to that.
The NZ middle class if the obvious bump in earnings between 40 and 70k in the top graph. The same bump is not really evident in the Maori figure below it.
More importantly, is that we're talking about [b]medians[/b], so as long as the middle and upper class are under 50% (I'd guess about 28% from the figures), then the Maori middle class aren't masking anything.Next, using these figures 11% of Maori are 15-19, compared to about 7% of the general population, but 18% and 10% of the 15+ population respectively. These people can be paid youth rates, so it's no shock that Maori have a lower median income. (Of course, the income figures could be age adjusted, but it doesn't say that).
-
And while we're talking about appropriate regulation for BZP, standardizing the bioequivalence of the pills themselves would be easier, and probably reduce the harmful effects more than trying to restrict the sale.
In a nutshell, if I pour four glasses of different brands of 40% vodka, it doesn't matter which one you drink, it will have the same effect, and the effect will kick in at the same time.
However, with BZP, you can take the same dose, and the rate and amount absorbed will vary. Bioequivalence studies are not exactly rocket science, and if the effects of different brands of pills were more consistent, I suspect there would be a lot less adverse effects.
Sale restrictions may well be a useful addition, but if your $2 supermarket brand paracetamol is the same as any other, then so should BZP be.
-
I suspect that was the point that James was making - that convenience is a far greater factor in banning substances than genuine risk.
Thanks H!
Precisely.