text:
User talk:Subsume/Archive1

Genesis
66.81.68.28 was rambling. According to most religious POVs he inserted some anachronisms (why would the Author of Genesis try to incorporate the later-to-develop Greek worldview?) Moreover, he linked to nonexistent articles using questionable link texts (Western and Greek philosophy are very much different). When this is coming from an anonymous editor and the POV is not clearly discernible, I revert for the sake of readability. If he wants this view represented, he'd better make some stylistic improvements. JFW | T@lk  08:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lilith
Absent-mindedly, I answered to your question on my on page: User_talk:Oop. Sorry. (Btw: if it's not secret, who's your professor? Just asking.) --Oop 19:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Jesus
In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, Mpolo has opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but Mpolo thinks the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) CheeseDreams 17:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the invite! You will definitely see my name again. I would start by simplifying the article to a state which everyone can agree upon, and letting it grow again. All those stub sections would be where I'd start my pruning. Yeago 18:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Its not clear which article you are referring to. If it is the "Historicity" article, then I am currently working on it on a different page whilst it is locked (I did try to sort it out before others started a revert war resulting in the locking). A response would be better also on the Wikiproject talk page, as the others will notice. Im glad you are willing to take part. CheeseDreams 18:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inventions of War
duct_tape

Easter egg link
Hi there. Would you mind explaining why you reverted my change to John Conyers? Don't worry—I'm not particularly worried about the revert, and won't change it back again, but I am curious. The reason I changed it is that, as things stand and stood, "runaway bride" does not link to an article on the concept of runaway bride. "Jennifer Wilbanks" may invoke the concept of runaway bride for Americans, and maybe always will (if no other famous Jennifer Wilbanks comes along), but "runaway bride" does not invoke Jennifer Wilbanks for a non-American, and I doubt it will for anyone in a few years' time (we are trying to avoid statements that will date quickly). Putting the name of the reference in brackets enables a reader to understand to what "runaway bride" refers, and he or she can follow that link if interested. — John Mark Williams <⌂|☎> 2 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Hi Yeago. Thanks for replying! You said, "I guess I didn't consider it a classical 'easter egg' because runaway bride is a disambig page." The only thing is, "runaway bride" doesn't link to the disambiguation page, but straight to Jennifer Wilbanks. Perhaps my change should have been to alter "runaway bride" from a piped link to a simple link, although arguably that wouldn't be right either, because Conyers was definitely referring to just one runaway bride, so it shouldn't need disambiguating. I'll have a think about it, and perhaps make another change if it seems worth it, but only if it'll be less ugly than my original change! — John Mark Williams <⌂|✆> 07:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hugh Johnson
Hi, you're perfectly right - that page should be a disambig page leading to the various articles of the several guys with that name. When I stumbled upon the page, I did not realize it was meant as a disambig page...I only read the first two entries and wrongly assumed it was an inferior article on Hugh Samuel Johnson. I'll undo my change and turn the page into a proper dismabig page. Do you have any more information on the wine connossieur? I have no doubt he is a notable person by himself, but it would be nice to write a bit more about him than just a single sentence... -- Ferkelparade π 00:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi. Can you explain to me what the deal was with this edit on Madagascar? --Hottentot 00:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A shameful prank. I believe I was framed. I really loved that film! Yeago 19:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Leroy disguise garb.jpg
Please verify and fix the source, as i'm unable to access the page. feydey 01:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have put the image to Copyright_problems/2005_December_27 since its not a promotional photo and the page is copyrighted (©2003 Associazione culturale Delos Books). See Fair_use and Publicity photos for clarification so you are able to upload correct images in the future. feydey 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As one of the editors recently involved in the collaborative effort to remove POV within the JT LeRoy article, I'd also like to protest to the recent changes you made to the article. Many of the changes have introduced new POV issues that weren't there before your edits. I do not object to the inclusion of a photo (provided, as feydey has pointed out, it is not a Copyvio), but the caption in particular is very POV, and the photo should be moved to the top of the article as well. I'll be editing the article again to maintain NPOV. Please do not make further changes without first introducing them on the talk page. Thanks. --Animated Cascade talk 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"People indicted under the Nazi justice system"
That would be a significant improvement over the current title. Suggest it at the deletion discussion. — Feb. 17, '06 [07:42]

 * I have, however, like many things CfD'd, the discussion quickly turns into "delete or keep". I was hoping to encourage you to consider the above improvement and then return to the discussion, as I think it would be a shame of this article was deleted.

 * To be honest, I think your introduction ("where do I even begin with this one?") and CfDing were made very hastily. I hope you will consider using the NPOV tag in the future, as I don't think this was a hard title to defuse. Thank you so much for responding.Yeago 07:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Documenting inappropriate WP editing
It looks like the "interested" category is going down in flames, to my mind correctly. However, I think I might be able to suggest an approach to your goal that is more defensible: Create a new article called something like Use of Wikipedia for propoganda (maybe you can come up with a better title).

In this article, you might describe in full prose form, exactly who did what and why it is contrary to encyclopedic goals. And more specifically, you can include citations to external sources that discuss and document this behavior (ideally, editors here aren't the ones judging what is "nice" and "interested" editing, but can simply point out that, e.g. "The Washington Post describes these edits as..."). One problem with categories is that they lack much nuance. Each item either is or is not in a category. Annotated lists can be a little better, but even so the list form is fairly stereotyped. An regular (non-list) article is better for this: you could have subsections like "The Adam Curry/Podcasting dispute" or "Representative Marty Meehan's staffers", and explain why each thing is notable.

Something along those lines, if done in a sufficiently WP:NPOV and WP:V manner is something I would vote "keep" on. Such an article certainly has room for expansion over time, but you could start by describing the four things you currently put into the category. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Werd. Tell me if you like this Wikipedia and public opinion. It was after I typed this up that I had the idea to make a category out of it (because I felt that propagandists, while Notable, were not Wikipedians). Maybe I'll just stick to the article, link it well and get it rockin'. Yeago 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * That seems workable. Could use a bit of cleanup, but the concept seems sound. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Alcoholics
The result of the debate was: 8 delete votes 3 keeps or in other words, 62% delete. After reading the comments posted, specifically: what criteria one would use for inclusion into the category, or removal, (N)POV stances, as well as the category/term as a whole being subjective, I felt 62% was a good enough majority. Of course your recourse is always WP:DRV if you still feel this as innappropriate. Thanks. —akghetto talk 20:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is an interesting subject, and I hope you can find some way to address the concerns raised. If you do end up taking it to appeal, I'd appreciate if you could drop me a note just so I could follow it (I personally wouldn't vote, just want to watch).  Thanks again!  —akghetto talk 22:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying vote
I would recommend you indicate at Articles for deletion/Wikipedia and public opinion that you are explicitly voting "keep" (or "delete", if that is how you feel, despite creating the page yourself). "Agree" is a bit hard to parse on an AfD, since it's not one of the votes (but it might tend to read like "agree with deletion nomination"). Moreover, it possibly matters that your vote is clear fairly early... I think a lot of AfD/CfD voters "go with the flow": if they think it's getting deleted, they agree; if they think it's getting kept, likewise. So a couple "keep" votes up front at least makes editors take a closer look rather than responding instinctively. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted personal attack re JT LeRoy
Hello. You seem to have accused me in several places of being a sock puppet of Laura Albert and/or user Grilledcheese in connection with my edits to the JT LeRoy article last fall. Please refrain from spreading this totally unwarranted accusation any further. Note that I have deliberately recused myself from Wikipedia for several months to allow others to work out a fair solution and to avoid any appearance of undue influence. IslandGyrl 02:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was suggested by someone before I ever came to the article. Sorry about that.Yeago 02:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruption, due to the personal attacks you made at WP:MC, as well as the history of personal attacks demonstrated by the other messages on this page. Personal attacks will not be tolerated; further attacks will result in further blocks, up to and including indefinite blocking. Essjay Talk •  Contact 07:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your email. It has lead me to an important realization: Twenty four hours was not long enough for you to read and grasp the full meaning of no personal attacks. As such, I've granted you an additional forty-eight hours to read and reflect on it. If you find that forty-eight hours still isn't long enough, I'll be happy to give you a week; I want to be sure you have fully grasped the policy, in particular, these lines: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

New Urbanism category
Thanks for your comments on Category talk:New Urbanism. I've responded there. --Singkong2005 14:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Halliburton
Thanks for your message about Halliburton. Yes - as you say, I certainly didn't intend anything to be homeless. On the contrary, I was tracking down a number of homeless business ethical issues and assigning these to categories, as well as cleaning up some rather redundant ones. It might be that some of my changes were (partly) reversed by others, but I don't have time to track down things like that - or perhaps I screwed up... The whole area of business ethical issues is rather a mess of categories at the moment. The "anti-corporate activism" category is one of the few categories that is established and healthy, so it seemed logical to put some lost and poorly categorised things into it.

If "anti-corporate activism" is intended to mean activists and not issues and cases, then the title should be changed. A category is surely open to any Wikipedian to use, so its title should clearly say what it is (or a message should be posted clearly where additional explanation is necessary). The problem I see here is that there a lot of articles on Wikipedia which are critical of corporations, and which for complex reasons are not suitable for the more academic category of "business ethics". For example, in the case of Halliburton, I see it more as an issue of current political activism than general ethics because a lot of attention focuses around the current US administration and its links with Halliburton. It would only become a general ethical issue if history continued to focus on the case long after Cheney has gone and if the case raises deeper issues. Rather than a proliferation of badly organised sub-categories with partisan titles (which had been growing sort of by itself), it would perhaps be more sensible for a few Wikipedians to try and clean up this area and identify established categories which are suitable to receive such articles. In other words, we need an "anti-corporate activism" category that allows issues and cases as well as individuals - so should 2 categories be created, or is the current one still small enough to accept a wider range?

Do you vaguely see what I'm getting at?

Caravaca 06:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Vaguely. =)

 * I think it was a good thing. Hopefully the categories will reform with a little more cogency. *Shrug*. I think you were a bit hasty but its not the end of Wikipedia.Yeago 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your User Page?

 * I don't have a clue who you are on Wikipedia. This offensive message (Meant for your Discussion page?)" Were you vandalized?. I am from Massachusetts, and met Marty Meehan a while ago. I am neutral on the subject, and wrote an article on his discussion page to that effect. I wanted you to see it. [[Image:Flag_of_Massachusetts.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|20px]] [[Image:Peace_Sign_2.svg|20px]] Merlinus (talk)

 * Read it. Not sure what I'm looking for but thanks for the read.Yeago 05:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Mumford
I should probably tweak what I wrote, I may have overstated it. I was just eager to get his lit. crit. work up there. I know him primarily as a Melville scholar. Read the bio from the Notre Dame prof. that I added link to at the bottom of the entry.Asedzie 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I appreciate the kind words on the additions to the entry. Thanks!Asedzie 02:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Urban restoration"

 * 'You misunderstand the meaning of "urban restoration" Google it or something. Has nothing to do with "white people moving in." This has been a good overhaul.'

I understand the term "urban restoration" to mean something broader than just the refubishment of buildings; it suggests overall positive change to an urban area. And yes, I understand that the term doesn't connote white people moving in. "Gentrification" in many contexts does (although that was too snarky a characterization; apologies). I don't like the term "urban restoration" in this context because it suggests a positive change overall. While I believe that is often the case during gentrification, this is not a matter of consensus among urban planners, sociologists, economists, activists, or any other group of experts with whom I am familiar. Everyone agrees that gentrification produces desirable physical/infrastructural changes; reasonable, informed people disagree over whether these changes produce an overall positive change/restoration, or whether instead destroy working-class and mixed-income neighborhoods in the interests of yuppiefication.

Is there a more neutral term we can use that is non-awkward? I did google "urban restoration" and haven't seen anything to suggest that the term is confined to the established area of agreement about what gentrification does. I like "physical restoration" but would be happy to hear any objections.

Thanks for your edits, by the way -- I was pretty unhappy with the intro before.

Thanks,

--Rocketfairy 01:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Heya. I suppose I hadn't thought to expand the meaning to include anything but urban infrastructure--intangible and 'physical'. I certainly don't read it to infer a value judgment on the Gentrification issue. I happen to be wearing blue jeans, a brown shirt and matching brown converse (aaand I visited Bedford Ave in the past 24 hours), so I can tell you what side of the issue I am (statistically) on. I suppose there's just something displeasing about saying "physical restoration" because there are a few intangibles--such as expansion of services. If you think it will read like a racial (or something) stab then please, omit it. No other phrase comes to mind without being needlessly wordy, which was, after all, the main sin of that section.
 * Yeago 07:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

King of class
I have had Coleman in my watchlist for a long time and I reverted before 172 ever approached me about it. I would suggest you moderate your language and approach. --TJive 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A simple comparison of the timestamp of 172s beggary compared to your revert cheerleading proves your statement is, well, BULLSHIT. Way to flop that one, buddyboy. What's sadder than watching you comply to be nothing better than a sockpuppet is watching you try to flail out of it with easily deflowered lies. (and then go on to tell me how to behave. hahaha.) Yeago 09:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Let's look at that again. My first revert came a matter of 50 minutes before 172's message. Unless you are speculating that 172's message was a public front for private correspondence, which is not true and for which you have no more evidence than your laughable 3RR report, I would suggest that we have here not a question of fecal matter protruding from my lips. Care to show otherwise? --TJive 20:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeago You are more likely to attract bees with honey than vinegar. Wise advise, that i rarely follow.  If I followed this advice more often, I wouldn't have been infinetly banned last month.  Calling someone's comments Bullshit just makes you enemies. I have often taken your approach, and our approach is almost always more work.  When I am a dick, I eventually still get the same end results, but I have to invest much more time, effort, and emotional energy to get my end results.  Try to be a diplomat, give TJive a compliment, apologize to him, explain to him how you want to build a better wikipedia.  It is much less work and hassle in the long wrong. If I recall correctly, TJive and I have butted heads before.  I usually take your approach, basically saying what TJive says is BULLSHIT. It doesn't work.  Try honey.

 * I came to your page because of your comments here I have no idea  if those comments are directed at me or the user.  Please clarify.

 * And BTW who the hell is Coleman and why should I care?  More important why do you and everyone else give a sh**?  It makes me laugh how everyone is so uptight about this trivial issue.  Makes me realize how unimportant wikipedia truly is.

 * The internet in general is a stomping ground for these little testosterone wars over nothing. I think in a sense I embrace its nature. For the time being I prefer it slightly to the condescendingly complimentary, WP:LAW citing diplomats in disguise, who use the "wikipedia a better place" rhetoric. I go back and forth on this one, hwvr.Yeago 17:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Signed:Travb (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your words, Travb, and its funny because I've given the same speech too, not failing to add that its advice I rarely follow. I suppose I just have a very sharp curve of patience.

 * I agree, it is more work and magnetizes more resistance to do things in this way. The best wishes to both of us in following this advice. While I can't compliment a bullshitter for being a bullshitter, I appreciate your encouragement, and will continue to do my best--at the end of the day--to keep in mind there are humans at the other sides of these things.

 * And no, that stab was not at you.

 * Yeago 17:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA
The rudeness with which you speak to and of User:172 on Talk:Norm Coleman is breathtaking, and you're none too civil to other people either. Several people have already asked you to stop making personal attacks. Now I tell you that you're likely to find yourself blocked for disruption if you keep poisoning the working climate on that talkpage. (This does not mean that it's OK to do it other places.) Bishonen | talk 20:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
 * I can see your problem with the first one although I don't see it as being as sinister as you interpret it to be. I am wondering, though, what bothered you about the second one, specifically? I thought it pretty much summed up the current direction of the whole debate, and made several valid points. It didn't refer to anyone in particular, so I'm not quite sure who you think I was attacking in that one. I think its easy to demonize people who show a little color in their argumentation--especially when, as you say, "Several people" complain. Its far short of namecalling. Yeago 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not, really? The trouble with the second one is that you assume abysmal bad faith. "What's funny is that if they thought this line of reasoning had any weight at all they would have..." "Revert cheerleadeers" is namecalling in my book. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC).

 * "Revert cheerleaders" is hardly attains Insidious status. Sure, it may be a rather colorful description of the practice of soliciting others in waging a revert war, but it is far from unreasonable, hateful screed ("breathtaking" as you may find it). If you think about what a cheerleader is, it is actually a very useful analogy—at least from my standpoint (and last time I checked, I was entitled to that). If you read above you'll see I actually brought this up with the cheerleader in question only to be lied to, which is indication enough of the accuracy of the classification.

 * I assume "Abysmal" (a very daring word) bad faith because for months I have replied to 172s contentless rhetoric and misguided understanding of the intent of WP:SELF and he has not once (1, ein, une) replied to me. I do assume bad faith because 172 keeps changing his polemic without ever bothing to explain himself. He cites WP:NOT for reasons I'm free to call "Derranged" until he actually starts partaking in thoughtful, open-ended dialogue. For now, from my standpoint, he's a pundit with an arbitrary cause and nothing more. As you can read in a conversation above, its plain that I lapse in my patience in these types of dealings. That doesn't make me a bad person, nor does it contravert my contributions to this project.

 * Yeago 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you've extended your rudeness to newcomers. I'd like to ask that you consider treating people with a modicum of respect and decency. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What newcomer are you talking about?Yeago 00:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

'Hi there. It seems pretty clear that you've no idea who I am, since none of what you wrote, save the bit about belonging to the "See also" section, applies to anything I've said. You mistake mockery for argumentation. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)'

 * And just for fun, please help me find the sense in this reply above.

 * Who you are? (Who cares)

 * Mistook mockery? (Ayeum... where did I do that...)

 * Applies to anything you've said? (It was a summary description though it most of it safely applies to you)Yeago 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, I'll help you out a little bit. First of all, your reply to my comments was not a reply at all, but rather a summation of statements made by others. This is rather inconsiderate, as it makes it appear that you're deliberately avoiding the issue. Where you say ""Where It Belongs" (hahahahaha. a real winner.)" you're clearly attempting some kind of mockery and refusing to take my points seriously. Very little of what you said safely applies to me, but to know that you'd have to read what I've written.

 * Ahh. I see what you mean. I suppose I did allow the comments of others to color that comment you made, regardless of its intent. I did read over your contributions and I definitely see a difference between the condescending tone of others and yours. I am very sorry I lumped you in like that--obviously, I used your "Where It Belongs" as a prompt. I do believe everything I said there; my application was very poor. My only excuse is that I've become accustomed to people who think they get to decide Relevance for the rest of us. I will try to remain more nimble.Yeago 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, and to address your original point: I don't suppose you care who I or anyone else here is, and I won't waste your time or mine by explaining. Your lack of respect for other people and for the policies upon which Wikipedia is evident throughout the discussion on Norm Coleman and on this talk page. Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, in fact I do care. I respect policy but only its intent. Policy is often summoned solely to justify subjective, even hidden political beliefs. Mistaken, as above. Thanks so much for the reply.Yeago 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson (person)
Since his mugshot is included in the wiki article, is there any usefulness in keeping the link to it too? -- JHunterJ 22:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Pictures changes every week or so, so I would just leave both.Yeago 23:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Urban pioneer"
Please see talk:gentrification. However, if you looked carefully you would have noted that I made several other changes to the article which deserve more than a cursory swipe into the trashbin. Paytonc 06:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely agreed =). You used the phrase so many times, however, a revert was much easier. If it was just a matter of here and there, I would have just removed it. Sorry about that!Yeago 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Intentional disruption
It is my belief that, in your postings to Talk:Bullshit!, you are not really trying to deal with the issue at hand, but are actually trying to provoke heated commentary, at least from me. I have given you specific evidence, policy, and warnings about violating Wikipedia principles, and you have responded by repeating the problems identified and ignoring the evidence given. I am hereby asking you to desist from this disruptive behavior, per Requests for comment, namely:
 * Inserting discussions into other people's postings, against the advice of Etiquette, and after explicitly being asked to refrain from this confusing practice.
 * I follow the advice when I find it useful. You can't just block off a section of text with ALL CAP html comments and decide nobody's allowed to intersperse text. Besides, my use of this method for communication is hardly excessive (I'm doing it here a lot because its my own business).Yeago 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Refusal to back away from personal attacks, like "ego-centric nature", "deluded", "simple-minded", and "rantings and ravings".
 * These are observations, not personal attacks. The nature of your 'argumentation' is completely self-fulfilling and self-directed.Yeago 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Putting words into my mouth, like:
 * "'Repenting' for being a monster", when all I was doing was apologizing for my own heated words (you are the only one using the word "monster").
 * Claiming my request for mediation is "over a vandal", when I have never said anything remotely like this (and, in fact, no vandalism has been done to this article or the talk page).
 * Someone who inserts a link repeatedly without discussion is a vandal.Yeago 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Refusal to cite supporting evidence for your arguments, instead simply continuing to add opinions.
 * The issue (in my mind) doesn't require any such thing. It requires Showtime make its discomfort with the links heard, or not. Plain and simple. You're the only one who, in his desperate search to validate himself, started bringing in a whole lot of unneccesary armchair legalese.Yeago 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your repeated claims that I am mis-citing policy seem to be aimed at my practice of citing legitimate policies that cover the issues I've brought up. You, on the other hand, have failed to cite any outside policy, practices, opinions, or other supporting evidence for any of your arguments, apparently believing that your rhetoric is what counts in making progress on this content dispute.

For someone who has "bigger things in my world than this silly little link", and who considers unresolved arguments over edit wars as "the whole 3RR nonsense game", you have demonstrated a remarkable unwillingness to drop these tactics, leading me to believe that your real purpose is argue for the sake of arguing. I am asking that you stop these attacks and actually help investigate this question. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. From your statement about my supposed "very bizarre (but telling) borderline-religious comments", you seem to be under the impression that I am religious, and that such a thing is a bad thing. While I won't necessarily argue the second point, the first couldn't be more wrong. I infer from your comment that you feel I am trying to get the full-video-download link removed because I am somehow against Bullshit! and Penn and Teller. If so, this is also completely wrong. I'm a major fan of the show, and am anxiously awaiting for season 3 to come out on DVD, because I refuse to support intellectual property theft by watching the shows on the Internet. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Exactly. You have some conviction about right and wrong and you're here lobbying for it. This is no different than religiousness at its core, which was the nature of my comment. Your other assumptions about my meaning are, of course, off.

 * This explains my apparent unwillingness to "investigate this question" with you—because I very well know your kind and what you're here for and it has nothing to do with investigation. There is no loop your mind will not jump through in order to view yourself as a kind of Internet Crusader of Justice. And I'm not going to jump through these loops after you. (in this case Showtime).Yeago 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpic
Hey, could you please cite a source for any of the claims made here? I kind of doubt all of them. Avatar (icon), on the other hand, is a lovely article about the same subject. Ashi b aka tock 16:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference between these two articles is vast in several ways. The audience discussed in Avatar represents an increasingly obscure slice of the internet. Given the popularity of social hubs such as the behemoth MySpace, the article on Userpic is more popularly relevant both in its approach and examples.

 * The content of Userpic does owe some of its origin to the 'Avatar'. The two are only technically similar. For example, the second sentance in 'Avatar' contains a number of popular MUDs. While you may find this lovely (indeed I do too, I've spent thousands of hours on MUDs), a MUD is not known or relevant to, I would estimate, a majority audience visiting Wikipedia.

 * As for source material, please use the ((source)) or ((fact)) tags. If you're going to suggest a redirect or merge, the avatar article is going to need to shift its focus to a more general audience (and I'm not sure which namespace I'd agree to either, since 'avatar' is not in universal use, or even general use in many groups). I do observe that Avatar seems to have a 'verifiability/verification' problem of its own. Just an observation.Yeago 03:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I have marked all parts of the article that seem suspicious to me. (Yeah, it's overkill. My point being that the only verifiable part of this article is a dictionary definition.) Ashi b aka tock 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I definitely understand your issue with the article. Many parts truly do not seem verifiable except through common knowledge of the group in question--but understand this isn't quite the area of society that is the subject of a lot of outside discussion and research, and so sources are rather scant for either article. Am I correct in assuming you're not a regular user of MySpace, LiveJournal, etc?

 * A side note: I think your emphasis on fact-tags and mistrust of 'common knowledge' appearing on WP is in part due to a kind of insecurity that has filtured through WP over the past couple of years, particularly over criticism of WP's accuracy. Obviously, in areas where knowledge is taken for granted there is potential for inaccuracy. But let's keep this article/debate in perspective: it is about internet user pictures =). Yeago 18:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually am a very frequent user of LiveJournal, but "userpics" there are hardly ever of the user and they are basically avatars. I know that everything on that page probably does apply to MySpace, but unfortunately, no matter how true it is, we have an anti-original research policy which requires us to back up all those interesting psychological statements. That's why I considered the article basically useless.

The "avatar" article, on the other hand, has been cleaned up by Y.T. and no longer has common-knowledge but unsourced claims such as this:

 * An avatar can mean what you want it to mean. There are no binding internet rules that state that avatars describe who you are. Oftentimes avatars are used to supplement a statement you are making to a certain forum. Maybe you are trying to brighten up peoples days, maybe you are trying to trying to rebel against an opressive figure of authority. Whatever you're trying to do, your avatar is a symbol of self-expression, and no one can take it away from you. (well they can but it'll always stay in your heart :<)

You might be saying that userpics on MySpace are different from avatars in that they are usually an actual user portrait; but there is nothing published about that phenomenon, so we will have to ignore it for now. Ashi b aka tock 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we're not communicating. Consider my words about 'audience' and then read this line:

 * An avatar (sometimes AV, av, or avvie) is an icon or representation of a user. The term is used on MUDs, in computer role-playing games, and shared non-gaming universes such as Active Worlds, Entropia Universe, There, Second Life, and The Palace.'

 * As for the crusade against Original Research, I agree its neccessary in many contexts, but not to the degree that we are creating unreadable and irrelevant articles. Avatar, while verifiable, is a disgusting mess of an article.

 * Yeago 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since we have different opinions on whether the article is useful I put it up for AfD to decide: Articles for deletion/Userpic Ashi b aka tock 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Righto.Yeago 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Past
I was wondering why you wrote what you did on your user page, and I guess I now know. I had one account before this one and that was two months ago. I was arguing for some issues on which I was an eyewitness, but I quit because of some stubborn idiots who just don't give up even when they know that they are 100% wrong. I am sure that you are familiar with wiki/sources/expert terms/reliable sources/no personal attacks and all that other crap they throw at you when they don't have anything to argue with. That's why I decided to edit only Gurdjieff related articles because I am really familiar with his work. Anyways if I wrote things like you did they would have probably have me banned from wikipedia altogether. I gotta say that your nazi-copyright and condom joke represent the situation exactly as it is. Cheers Aeuio 02:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I'm very familiar with Wikilawyers spouting a bunch of WP:CaseLaw when they've got something they need to justify. They don't acknowledge (or don't know) that two people can read the same line and, because of their personal biases, read two opposite things. So with what they consider unbias and objectiveness they stomp into situations more biased than anyone.

 * Hmm... its tough. I've been banned/threatened before. I think I've adjusted in the same way you have--I hang out at choice articles and leave the rest alone. Anyway, don't let the man get you down. =) Take care, buddy.Yeago 16:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion
Regarding. Could you please explain yourself? None of the uploaders on YouTube appear to be the copyright holders (presumably Fox News), and there is no indication that the show is released under a free license, so the clips are indeed copyright violations. Linking to copyright violations is a copyright violation in itself, and is prohibited. Dmcdevit·t 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Clips from the show may constitute fair use. As for the promo, it was 'leaked' by Fox News onto the internet. Moreover, you removed links which had no copyright contention whatsoever.Yeago 15:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Clips from the show do not constitute fair use unless they illustrate descriptive text, which they do not do. Saying they were leaked does not mean they have were released under a free license and those YouTube users do not provide and copyright information at all. The links need to be removed. Dmcdevit·t 16:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how your theory works in practice--YouTube comments ostensibly could be 'illustrative descriptive text', but of course everyone is a lawyer on Wikipedia. The original video link may fit your bill, we'll see if anyone can dig up where the 'leak' originated. Also, you removed a link that definitely had nothing to do with any of the above.Yeago 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous-stub
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?  23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

vandal rickquiroz
Hi Yeago, where do I report rickquiroz to the administrators? he has blanked the Fellowship of Friends page for the fifth time, after his final warning. Thanks Wine-in-ark 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I mistakenly thought you were one.Yeago 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Rickquiroz has already been blocked. However, User:Ivan-ossokin is not yet blocked so I added this user to WP:AIV (since I am not an admin). This user will get blocked soon. Han Amos 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Woops. Thought you were one.Yeago 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One genius move after another, and you want to be a dictator!. Aeuio 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if I'm being insulted... But yes, I do. =)03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just kidding Aeuio 11:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * =)Yeago 16:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush
"If you'd like to merge the trivia into the rest of the article, I will stop reverting." Quite frankly, you'll stop reverting because you'll be blocked for edit warring if you don't. You are going against consensus, and I would ask you to comment on the talk page before continuing. -  auburn pilot  talk  00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, see 3RR. There is no consensus unless I agree. That's what consensus is.Yeago 10:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Way
Apparently the "This is an article about the 'system' of G.I. Gurdjieff. For P.D. Ouspensky's book on the subject, see Fourth Way (book)." is seen as a separation of Ouspenky's teaching and Gurdjieff's. I saw that you added this on the "book", while I don't want to go through the history of the fourth way to see who added it there, so could you comment personally why that's there. Aeuio 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heya budy. I think I know what you're saying. Those italic words are kind of a quick 'disambiguation' for users. Its not there to draw a distinction between O's and G's teachings. Its just there because when you say 'Fourth way' it could mean two things, and its a quick way to get to the one you're looking for, if you arrive at another. It could be a book or it could be a teaching. Although the book is about the teaching, the teaching isn't necessarily about the book. Are you wondering if the two could be merged?Yeago 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not a merger. I needed your response (I was giving the same response) because I was being accused of trying to separate Ouspensky's teaching and Gurdjieff's teaching. Thanks Aeuio 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * NP =)Yeago 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Subsume/Archive1


text:
Employee stock option

Employee stock options (ESO) is a label that refers to compensation contracts between an employer and an employee that carries some characteristics of financial options.

Employee stock options are commonly viewed as an internal agreement providing the possibility to participate in the share capital of a company, granted by the company to an employee as part of the employee's remuneration package. Regulators and economists have since specified that ESOs are compensation contracts.

These nonstandard contracts exist between employee and employer, whereby the employer has the liability of delivering a certain number of shares of the employer stock, when and if the employee stock options are exercised by the employee. The contract length varies, and often carries terms that may change depending on the employer and the current employment status of the employee. In the United States, the terms are detailed within an employer's "Stock Option Agreement for Incentive Equity Plan". Essentially, this is an agreement which grants the employee eligibility to purchase a limited amount of stock at a predetermined price. The resulting shares that are granted are typically restricted stock. There is no obligation for the employee to exercise the option, in which case the option will lapse.

AICPA's Financial Reporting Alert describes these contracts as amounting to a "short" position in the employer's equity, unless the contract is tied to some other attribute of the employer's balance sheet. To the extent the employer's position can be modeled as a type of option, it is most often modeled as a "short position in a call". From the employee's point of view, the compensation contract provides a conditional right to buy the equity of the employer and when modeled as an option, the employee's perspective is that of a "long position in a call option".

Objectives
Many companies use employee stock options plans to retain, reward, and attract employees, the objective being to give employees an incentive to behave in ways that will boost the company's stock price. The employee could exercise the option, pay the exercise price and would be issued with ordinary shares in the company. As a result, the employee would experience a direct financial benefit of the difference between the market and the exercise prices.

Stock options are also used as golden handcuffs if their value has increased drastically. An employee leaving the company would also effectively be leaving behind a large amount of potential cash, subject to restrictions as defined by the company. These restrictions, such as vesting and non-transferring, attempt to align the holder's interest with those of the business shareholders.

Another substantial reason that companies issue employee stock options as compensation is to preserve and generate cash flow. The cash flow comes when the company issues new shares and receives the exercise price and receives a tax deduction equal to the "intrinsic value" of the ESOs when exercised.

Employee stock options are offered differently based on position and role at the company, as determined by the company. Management typically receives the most as part of their executive compensation package. ESOs may also be offered to non-executive level staff, especially by businesses that are not yet profitable, insofar as they may have few other means of compensation. Alternatively, employee-type stock options can be offered to non-employees: suppliers, consultants, lawyers and promoters for services rendered.

Overview
Over the course of employment, a company generally issues employee stock options to an employee which can be exercised at a particular price set on the grant day, generally a public company's current stock price or a private company's most recent valuation, such as an independent 409A valuation commonly used within the United States. Depending on the vesting schedule and the maturity of the options, the employee may elect to exercise the options at some point, obligating the company to sell the employee its stock shares at whatever stock price was used as the exercise price. At that point, the employee may either sell public stock shares, attempt to find a buyer for private stock shares (either an individual, specialized company, or secondary market), or hold on to it in the hope of further price appreciation.

Contract differences
Employee stock options may have some of the following differences from standardized, exchange-traded options:

 * Exercise price: The exercise price is non-standardized and is usually the current price of the company stock at the time of issue. Alternatively, a formula may be used, such as sampling the lowest closing price over a 30-day window on either side of the grant date. On the other hand, choosing an exercise at grant date equal to the average price for the next sixty days after the grant would eliminate the chance of back dating and spring loading. Often, an employee may have ESOs exercisable at different times and different exercise prices.
 * Quantity: Standardized stock options typically have 100 shares per contract. ESOs usually have some non-standardized amount.
 * Vesting: Initially if X number of shares are granted to employee, then all X may not be in his account.
 * Some or all of the options may require that the employee continue to be employed by the company for a specified term of years before "vesting", i.e. selling or transferring the stock or options. Vesting may be granted all at once ("cliff vesting") or over a period time ("graded vesting"), in which case it may be "uniform" (e.g. 20% of the options vest each year for 5 years) or "non-uniform" (e.g. 20%, 30% and 50% of the options vest each year for the next three years).
 * Some or all of the options may require a certain event to occur, such as an initial public offering of the stock, or a change of control of the company.
 * The schedule may change pending the employee or the company having met certain performance goals or profits (e.g., a 10% increase in sales).
 * It is possible for some options to time-vest but not performance-vest. This can create an unclear legal situation about the status of vesting and the value of options at all.
 * Liquidity: ESOs for private companies are not traditionally liquid, as they are not publicly traded.
 * Duration (Expiration): ESOs often have a maximum maturity that far exceeds the maturity of standardized options. It is not unusual for ESOs to have a maximum maturity of 10 years from date of issue, while standardized options usually have a maximum maturity of about 30 months. If the holder of the ESOs leaves the company, it is not uncommon for this expiration date to be moved up to 90 days.
 * Non-transferable: With few exceptions, ESOs are generally not transferable and must either be exercised or allowed to expire worthless on expiration day. There is a substantial risk that when the ESOs are granted (perhaps 50% ) that the options will be worthless at expiration. This should encourage the holders to reduce risk by selling exchange traded call options. In fact it is the only efficient way to manage those speculative ESOs and SARs. Wealth Managers generally advise early exercise of ESOs and SARs, then sell and diversify.
 * Over the counter: Unlike exchange traded options, ESOs are considered a private contract between the employer and employee. As such, those two parties are responsible for arranging the clearing and settlement of any transactions that result from the contract. In addition, the employee is subjected to the credit risk of the company. If for any reason the company is unable to deliver the stock against the option contract upon exercise, the employee may have limited recourse. For exchange-trade options, the fulfillment of the option contract is guaranteed by the Options Clearing Corp.
 * Tax issues: There are a variety of differences in the tax treatment of ESOs having to do with their use as compensation. These vary by country of issue but in general, ESOs are tax-advantaged with respect to standardized options. See below.
 * In the U.S., stock options granted to employees are of two forms that differ primarily in their tax treatment. They may be either:
 * Incentive stock options (ISOs)
 * Non-qualified stock options (NQSOs or NSOs)
 * In the UK, there are various approved tax and employee share schemes, including Enterprise Management Incentives (EMIs). (Employee share schemes that aren’t approved by the UK government don’t have the same tax advantages.)

Valuation
As of 2006, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) agree that the fair value at the grant date should be estimated using an option pricing model. Here, via requisite modifications, the model should incorporate the features described above. In general–due to these–the value of the ESO will typically "be much less than [standard] prices for corresponding market-traded options."

In discussing the valuation, FAS 123 Revised (A15)—which does not prescribe a specific valuation model—states that: "a lattice model can be designed to accommodate dynamic assumptions of expected volatility and dividends over the option's contractual term, and estimates of expected option exercise patterns during the option's contractual term, including the effect of blackout periods. Therefore, the design of a lattice model more fully reflects the substantive characteristics of a particular employee share option or similar instrument. Nevertheless, both a lattice model and the Black–Scholes–Merton formula, as well as other valuation techniques that meet the requirements ... can provide a fair value estimate that is consistent with the measurement objective and fair-value-based method...." A KPMG study (from 2012) suggests that most ESO valuations use either Black–Scholes or a lattice model, as adjusted to incorporate the features of typical ESOs.

The IASB reference to "contractual term" requires that the model incorporates the effect of vesting on the valuation. As above, option holders may not exercise their option prior to their vesting date, and during this time the option is effectively European in the method currently followed. "Blackout periods", similarly, requires that the model recognizes that the option may not be exercised during the quarter (or other period) preceding the release of financial results (or other corporate event), when employees would be precluded from trade in company securities; see Insider trading. During other times, exercise would be allowed, and the option is effectively American there. Given this pattern, the ESO, in total, is therefore a Bermudan option. Note that employees leaving the company prior to vesting will forfeit unvested options, which results in a decrease in the company's liability, and this too must be incorporated into the valuation.

The reference to "expected exercise patterns" is to what is called "suboptimal early exercise behavior". Here, regardless of theoretical considerations—see —employees are assumed to exercise when they are sufficiently "in the money". This is usually proxied as the share price exceeding a specified multiple of the strike price; this multiple, in turn, is often an empirically determined average for the company or industry in question (as is the rate of employees exiting the company). "Suboptimal", as it is this behavior which results in the above reduction in value, relative to standard options.

The preference for lattice models is that these break the problem into discrete sub-problems, and hence different rules and behaviors may be applied at the various time/price combinations as appropriate. (The binomial model is the simplest and most common lattice model.) The "dynamic assumptions of expected volatility and dividends" (e.g. expected changes to dividend policy), as well as of forecast changes in interest rates (as consistent with today's term structure), may also be incorporated in a lattice model; although a finite difference model would be more correctly (if less easily) applied in these cases.

Black–Scholes may be applied to ESO valuation, but with an important consideration: option maturity is substituted with an "effective time to exercise", reflecting the impact on value of vesting, employee exits and suboptimal exercise. For modelling purposes, where Black–Scholes is used, this number is (often) based on SEC Filings of comparable companies. For reporting purposes, it can be found by calculating the ESO's Fugit, "the (risk-neutral) expected life of the option", directly from the lattice, or back-solved such that Black–Scholes returns a given lattice-based result (see also ).

The Hull–White model (2004) is widely used, while the work of Carpenter (1998) is acknowledged as the first attempt at a "thorough treatment"; see also Rubinstein (1995). These are essentially modifications of the standard binomial model (although may sometimes be implemented as a trinomial tree). See below for further discussion, as well as calculation resources, and contingent claim valuation more generally. Although the Black–Scholes model is still applied by the majority of public and private companies, through September 2006, over 350 companies have publicly disclosed the use of a (modified) binomial model in SEC filings. Often, the inputs to the pricing model may be difficult to determine —usually stock volatility, expected time to expiration, and relevant exercise multiples—and a variety of commercial services are now offered here.

General accepted accounting principles in the United States (GAAP)
The US GAAP accounting model for employee stock options and similar share-based compensation contracts changed substantially in 2005 as FAS123 (revised) began to take effect. According to US generally accepted accounting principles in effect before June 2005, principally FAS123 and its predecessor APB 25, stock options granted to employees did not need to be recognized as an expense on the income statement when granted if certain conditions were met, although the cost (expressed under FAS123 as a form of the fair value of the stock option contracts) was disclosed in the notes to the financial statements.

This allows a potentially large form of employee compensation to not show up as an expense in the current year, and therefore, currently overstate income. Many assert that over-reporting of income by methods such as this by American corporations was one contributing factor in the Stock Market Downturn of 2002.

Employee stock options have to be expensed under US GAAP in the US. Each company must begin expensing stock options no later than the first reporting period of a fiscal year beginning after June 15, 2005. As most companies have fiscal years that are calendars, for most companies this means beginning with the first quarter of 2006. As a result, companies that have not voluntarily started expensing options will only see an income statement effect in fiscal year 2006. Companies will be allowed, but not required, to restate prior-period results after the effective date. This will be quite a change versus before, since options did not have to be expensed in case the exercise price was at or above the stock price (intrinsic value based method APB 25). Only a disclosure in the footnotes was required. Intentions from the international accounting body IASB indicate that similar treatment will follow internationally.

As above, "Method of option expensing: SAB 107", issued by the SEC, does not specify a preferred valuation model, but 3 criteria must be met when selecting a valuation model: The model is applied in a manner consistent with the fair value measurement objective and other requirements of FAS123R; is based on established financial economic theory and generally applied in the field; and reflects all substantive characteristics of the instrument (i.e. assumptions on volatility, interest rate, dividend yield, etc.) need to be specified.

Taxation
Most employee stock options in the US are non-transferable and they are not immediately exercisable although they can be readily hedged to reduce risk. Unless certain conditions are satisfied, the IRS considers that their "fair market value" cannot be "readily determined", and therefore "no taxable event" occurs when an employee receives an option grant. For a stock option to be taxable upon grant, the option must either be actively traded or it must be transferable, immediately exercisable, and the fair market value of the option must be readily ascertainable. Depending on the type of option granted, the employee may or may not be taxed upon exercise. Non-qualified stock options (those most often granted to employees) are taxed upon exercise as standard income. Incentive stock options (ISO) are not but are subject to Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), assuming that the employee complies with certain additional tax code requirements. Most importantly, shares acquired upon exercise of ISOs must be held for at least one year after the date of exercise if the favorable capital gains tax are to be achieved. However, taxes can be delayed or reduced by avoiding premature exercises and holding them until near expiration day and hedging along the way. The taxes applied when hedging are friendly to the employee/optionee.

The Sharesave scheme is a tax-efficient employee stock option program in the United Kingdom.

Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation
This item of the profit-and-loss (P&L) statement of companies' earnings reports is due to the different timing of option expense recognition between the GAAP P&L and how the IRS deals with it, and the resulting difference between estimated and actual tax deductions.

At the time the options are awarded, GAAP requires an estimate of their value to be run through the P&L as an expense. This lowers operating income and GAAP taxes. However, the IRS treats option expense differently, and only allows their tax deductibility at the time the options are exercised/expire and the true cost is known.

This means that cash taxes in the period the options are expensed are higher than GAAP taxes. The delta goes into a deferred income tax asset on the balance sheet. When the options are exercised/expire, their actual cost becomes known and the precise tax deduction allowed by the IRS can then be determined. There is then a balancing up event. If the original estimate of the options' cost was too low, there will be more tax deduction allowed than was at first estimated. This 'excess' is run through the P&L in the period when it becomes known (i.e. the quarter in which the options are exercised). It raises net income (by lowering taxes) and is subsequently deducted out in the calculation of operating cashflow because it relates to expenses/earnings from a prior period.

Criticism
Alan Greenspan was critical of the structure of present-day options structure, so John Olagues created a new form of employee stock option called "dynamic employee stock options", which restructure the ESOs and SARs to make them far better for the employee, the employer and wealth managers.

Charlie Munger, vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and chairman of Wesco Financial and the Daily Journal Corporation, has criticized conventional stock options for company management as "... capricious, as employees awarded options in a particular year would ultimately receive too much or too little compensation for reasons unrelated to employee performance. Such variations could cause undesirable effects, as employees receive different results for options awarded in different years", and for failing "to properly weigh the disadvantage to shareholders through dilution" of stock value. Munger believes profit-sharing plans are preferable to stock option plans.

According to Warren Buffett, investor Chairman & CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, "[t]here is no question in my mind that mediocre CEOs are getting incredibly overpaid. And the way it's being done is through stock options."

Other criticisms include:
 * 1) Dilution can be very costly to shareholder over the long run.
 * 2) Stock options are difficult to value.
 * 3) Stock options can result in egregious compensation of executive for mediocre business results.
 * 4) Retained earnings are not counted in the exercise price.
 * 5) An individual employee is dependent on the collective output of all employees and management for a bonus.

Indexed options supporters
Other critics of (conventional) stock option plans in the US include supporters of "reduced-windfall" or indexed options for executive/management compensation. These include academics such as Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried, institutional investor organizations the Institutional Shareholder Services and the Council of Institutional Investors, and business commentators.

Reduced-windfall options would adjust option prices to exclude "windfalls" such as falling interest rates, market and sector-wide share price movements, and other factors unrelated to the managers' own efforts. This can be done in a number of ways such as
 * `indexing` or otherwise adjusting the exercise price of options to the average performance of the firm's particular industry to screen out broad market effects, (e.g. instead of issuing X many options with an exercise price equal to the current market price of $100, grant X many options whose strike price is $100 multiplied by an industry market index) or
 * making the vesting of at least some options contingent on share price appreciation exceeding a certain benchmark (say, exceeding the appreciation of the shares of the bottom 20% of firm in the company's sector).

According to Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried, "Options whose value is more sensitive to managerial performance are less favorable to managers for the same reasons that they are better for shareholders: Reduced-windfall options provide managers with less money or require them to cut managerial slack, or both."

However, as of 2002, only 8.5% of large public firms issuing options to executives conditioned even a portion of the options granted on performance.

A 1999 survey of the economics of executive compensation lamented that: "Despite the obvious attractive features of relative performance evaluation, it is surprisingly absent from US executive compensation practices. Why shareholders allow CEOs to ride bull markets to huge increases in their wealth is an open question."

Controversy
Stock option expensing has been surrounded in controversy since the early 1900s. The earliest attempts by accounting regulators to expense stock options were unsuccessful and resulted in the promulgation of FAS123 by the Financial Accounting Standards Board which required disclosure of stock option positions but no income statement expensing, per se. The controversy continued and in 2005, at the insistence of the SEC, the FASB modified the FAS123 rule to provide a rule that the options should be expensed as of the grant date. One misunderstanding is that the expense is at the fair value of the options. This is not true. The expense is indeed based on the fair value of the options but that fair value measure does not follow the fair value rules for other items which are governed by a separate set of rules under ASC Topic 820. In addition the fair value measure must be modified for forfeiture estimates and may be modified for other factors such as liquidity before expensing can occur. Finally the expense of the resulting number is rarely made on the grant date but in some cases must be deferred and in other cases may be deferred over time as set forth in the revised accounting rules for these contracts known as FAS123 (revised).

External links and references
General reference
 * John Olagues and John Summa, Getting Started in Employee Stock Options, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. ISBN 0470471921.
 * John Summa, Employee Stock Options: Introduction, investopedia.com

Valuation
 * Les Barenbaum, Walt Schubert, and Bonnie O’Rourke, Valuing Employee Stock Options Using a Lattice Model, The CPA Journal, December 2004.
 * Luis Betancourt, Charles P. Baril and John W. Briggs, How to Excel at Options Valuation, Journal of Accountancy, December 2005.
 * Jennifer Carpenter, The exercise and valuation of executive stock options, ''Journal of Financial Economics, 48 (1998) 127-158.
 * Joseph A. D’Urso, Valuing Employee Stock Options: A Binomial Approach Using Microsoft Excel, The CPA Journal, July 2005.
 * Tim V. Eaton and Brian R. Prucyk, No Longer an Option, Journal of Accountancy, April 2005. (Discusses Black–Scholes-based implementation.)
 * Lookman Buky Folami, Tarun Arora, and Kasim L. Alli, Using Lattice Models to Value Employee Stock Options Under SFAS 123(R), The CPA Journal, September 2006.
 * David Harper, Tutorial: accounting and valuation treatment of employee stock options, investopedia.com
 * John C. Hull and Alan White, How to Value Employee Stock Options. Financial Analysts Journal, Jan/Feb 2004. (2002 Preprint; Software accompanying the paper available below.)
 * Tim Leung and Ronnie Sircar, Accounting for Risk Aversion, Vesting, Job Termination Risk and Multiple Exercises in Valuation of Employee Stock Options, Mathematical Finance, 19, January 2009.
 * Johnathan Mun, Valuing Employee Stock Options, Wiley Finance, 2004. ISBN 0471705128.
 * Mark Rubinstein, On the Accounting Valuation of Employee Stock Options, Journal of Derivatives, Fall 1995.
 * SEC, Staff Accounting Bulletin no. 107, 2005. (Implementation guidance – discussing, i.a., situations of limited valuation data.)
 * Graeme West, A Finite Difference Model for Valuation of Employee Stock Options, 2009.

Issues
 * John Abowd and David Kaplan, Executive Compensation: Six Questions That Need Answering, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1999).
 * Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, Are CEOs Paid for Luck, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2001.
 * Business Week, Options: Have an Exit Plan, June 18, 2007.
 * The Economist, Shares and share unlike., Aug. 5, 1999. (questioning whether investors (as owners) actually gain from large option packages for top management.)
 * Brian J. Hall and Jeffrey Liebman, Are CEOs really paid like Bureaucrats?, Quarterly journal of Economics, 1998.
 * Brian J. Hall and Kevin J. Murphy, The Trouble with Stock Options, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2003, Vol. 17, Issue 3, pp. 49–70.
 * Randall A. Heron and Erik Lie, (445 KiB), Journal of Financial Economics, 2006.
 * John D. Menke, How to Structure Stock Ownership Plans for Management Employees .

Calculation resources
 * Brian K. Boonstra: Model For Pricing ESOs (Excel spreadsheet and VBA code)
 * Joseph A. D’Urso: Valuing Employee Stock Options (Excel spreadsheet)
 * Thomas Ho: Employee Stock Option Model (Excel spreadsheet)
 * John Hull: software based on the article: How to Value Employee Stock Options (Excel spreadsheet)
 * Montgomery Investment Technology: Lattice ESO (web based)
 * Personal Tax Calculator: Options Calculator (web based)
 * Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan: Basic FASB 123 calculator (web based; archived)
 * Alternative Minimum Tax Calculation: Employee Stock Option Fund (web based)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Employee stock option


text: User talk:157.242.206.50

title: User talk:157.242.206.50


text:
User talk:Darth Ludi

File:Map Austria Baden.png

 * Do you know the full name at de.wikipedia? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that was in 2004, and I highly doubt that image is still in use there. Darth Ludi (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Map Austria Baden.png

The file File:Map Austria Baden.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Orphaned map."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Darth Ludi


text:
Piracetam

Piracetam is a drug that has efficacy in cognitive disorders, vertigo, cortical myoclonus, dyslexia, and sickle cell anemia; sources differ on its usefulness for dementia. Piracetam is sold as a medication in many European countries. Sale of piracetam is not illegal in the United States, although it is not regulated nor approved by the FDA, so it is legally sold for research use only.

Piracetam is in the racetams group, with chemical name 2-oxo-1-pyrrolidine acetamide. It is a cyclic derivative of the neurotransmitter GABA and shares the same 2-oxo-pyrrolidone base structure with pyroglutamic acid. Related drugs include the anticonvulsants levetiracetam and brivaracetam, and the putative nootropics aniracetam and phenylpiracetam.

Dementia
A 2001 Cochrane review concluded that there was not enough evidence to support piracetam for dementia or cognitive problems. A 2005 review found some evidence of benefit in older subjects with cognitive impairment. In 2008, a working group of the British Academy of Medical Sciences noted that many of the trials of piracetam for dementia were flawed.

There is no good evidence that piracetam is of benefit in treating vascular dementia.

Depression and anxiety
Some sources suggest that piracetam's overall effect on lowering depression and anxiety is higher than on improving memory. However, depression is reported to be an occasional adverse effect of piracetam.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Several clinical trials have looked at piracetam's efficacy as a treatment for ADHD. Many of these have found that the drug fails to deliver the same therapeutic effects as current standard treatments for the disorder. However, more than one study has found piracetam to be highly synergistic with standard ADHD therapies, accelerating and potentiating their therapeutic effects. One 2008 clinical trial found that the combination of piracetam and atomoxetine was more effective than atomoxetine alone.

While piracetam may be an effective adjuvant therapy for ADHD (when used with specific medications), there is no evidence that it is effective when used in isolation.

Other
Piracetam may facilitate the deformability of erythrocytes in capillary which is useful for cardiovascular disease.

Peripheral vascular effects of piracetam have suggested its use potential for vertigo, dyslexia, Raynaud's phenomenon and sickle cell anemia. There is no evidence to support piracetam's use in sickle cell crisis prevention or for fetal distress during childbirth. There is no evidence for benefit of piracetam with acute ischemic stroke, though there is debate as to its utility during stroke rehabilitation.

Anti-vasospasm
Piracetam has been found to diminish erythrocyte adhesion to vascular wall endothelium, making any vasospasm in the capillary less severe. This contributes to its efficacy in promoting microcirculation, including to the brain and kidneys.

Side effects
Symptoms of general excitability, including anxiety, insomnia, irritability, headache, agitation, nervousness, tremor, and hyperkinesia, are occasionally reported. Other reported side effects include somnolence, weight gain, clinical depression, weakness, increased libido, and hypersexuality.

According to a 2005 review, piracetam has been observed to have the following side effects: hyperkinesia, weight gain, nervousness, somnolence, depression and asthenia.

Piracetam reduces platelet aggregation as well as fibrinogen concentration, and thus is contraindicated to patients with cerebral hemorrhage.

Toxicity
The for oral consumption in humans has not been determined. The LD50 is 5.6 g/kg for rats and 20 g/kg for mice, indicating extremely low acute toxicity. For comparison, in rats the LD50 of vitamin C is 12 g/kg and the LD50 of table salt is 3 g/kg.

Mechanisms of action
Piracetam's mechanism of action, as with racetams in general, is not fully understood. The drug influences neuronal and vascular functions and influences cognitive function without acting as a sedative or stimulant. Piracetam is a positive allosteric modulator of the AMPA receptor, although this action is very weak and its clinical effects may not necessarily be mediated by this action. It is hypothesized to act on ion channels or ion carriers, thus leading to increased neuron excitability. GABA brain metabolism and GABA receptors are not affected by piracetam

Piracetam increases the action of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine via muscarinic cholinergic (ACh) receptors, which are implicated in memory processes. Furthermore, piracetam may have an effect on NMDA glutamate receptors, which are involved with learning and memory processes. Piracetam is thought to increase cell membrane permeability. Piracetam may exert its global effect on brain neurotransmission via modulation of ion channels (i.e., Na+, K+). It has been found to increase oxygen consumption in the brain, apparently in connection to ATP metabolism, and increases the activity of adenylate kinase in rat brains. Piracetam, while in the brain, appears to increase the synthesis of cytochrome b5, which is a part of the electron transport mechanism in mitochondria. But in the brain, it also increases the permeability of some intermediates of the Krebs cycle through the mitochondrial outer membrane.

Piracetam inhibits N-type calcium channels. The concentration of piracetam achieved in central nervous system after a typical dose of 1200 mg (about 100 μM) is much higher than the concentration necessary to inhibit N-type calcium channels (IC50 of piracetam in rat neurons was 3 μM).

History
Piracetam was first made some time between the 1950s and 1964 by Corneliu E. Giurgea. There are reports of it being used for epilepsy in the 1950s.

Society and culture
In 2009 piracetam was reportedly popular as a cognitive enhancement drug among students.

Legal status
Piracetam is an uncontrolled substance in the United States meaning it is legal to possess without a license or prescription. Use of piracetam in food, supplements, medical devices, insecticides, infant formula, cosmetics, animal feed, animal drugs, tobacco products, and drugs is unlawful and constitutes an act of misbranding.

Regulatory status
In the United States, piracetam is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Piracetam is not permitted in compounded drugs or dietary supplements in the United States. Like most research chemicals, it has been available over-the-counter, self-regulated, and third-party lab tested by many US companies for decades. Yet, nonetheless it is still for the purposes of U.S. law a "New Drug" as defined by 21 U.S. Code § 321(p)(1).

In the United Kingdom, piracetam is approved as a prescription drug Prescription Only Medicine (POM) number is PL 20636/2524 for adult with myoclonus of cortical origin, irrespective of cause, and should be used in combination with other anti-myoclonic therapies.

In Japan piracetam is approved as a prescription drug.

In Czech Republic piracetam is available without prescription.

Piracetam has no DIN in Canada, and thus cannot be sold but can be imported for personal use in Canada.

In Hungary, piracetam was a prescription-only medication, but as of 2020, no prescription is required and piracetam is available as an over-the-counter drug under the name Memoril Mite, and is available in 600 mg pills.

title: Piracetam


text: File:Loch 4.jpg

title: File:Loch 4.jpg


text: User talk:66.159.208.231

title: User talk:66.159.208.231


text:
Hustle (dance)

The Hustle is a catch-all name for some disco dances which were extremely popular in the 1970s. Late 1970s, Bump, Hustle, Watergate and Spank were popular. It mostly refers to the unique partner dance done in nightclubs to disco music. Hustle has steps in common with Mambo and Salsa and basic steps are somewhat similar to Euro dance style "discofox", which emerged at about the same time and is more familiar in various European countries. Modern partner hustle is sometimes referred to as New York hustle, however, its original name is the Latin hustle.

A great source for research on the origins of the Hustle is a book written by Willie Estrada, one of the original pioneers of the Latin Hustle by the name, "The Dancing Gangsters of the South Bronx (Rise of the Latin Hustle)".

Latin Strut
Joe Bataan recorded a song called "Latin Strut" after visiting a Bronx Club called the "310 1/2" in 1973 and seeing the first version of a 6-step dance called "The Hustle" this new Latin rhythmic sound helped young Latino Teenagers develop a faster more robust version of the original slower paced six-step dance which was also a bit robotic. However, with the introduction of songs with faster rhythmic tempos young hustle dancers started doing the dance with fancier gyrations which is when it became known as the Latin Hustle. Other variations of the Hustle would soon be developed by the Black and White communities who also helped spread the Hustle throughout New York City, and eventually the world.

James Brown and Fatback
The original early hustle was a 5-step count with no turns, created by Puerto Rican teenagers in late 1972 as a direct result of Puerto Rican elders objecting to young teenagers doing a grinding slow dance known as the 500. Created in the South Bronx among Puerto Rican teens it was originally done at house parties, hooky gigs, and basements club dances in the South Bronx. It became known as "Spanish hustle"; from 1975 to 1976, funk band the Fatback Band made a song with that name. It was also known as the "Latin hustle"; and was a 6 step count to the beat of the music. And James Brown released Everybody's Doin' the Hustle & Dead on the Double Bump album in 1975. Same year The JB's released Hustle with Speed album. Around 1976 it became known as the "New York hustle". Later, known as just "the hustle", when the dance became commercialized after the release of Saturday Night Fever in 1977. The early Latin hustle Pioneers were Willie "Marine Boy" Estrada and many other members. Some of them were members of a gang called the Imperial Bachelors, who used the Latin hustle as a way to bring peace into a violent South Bronx. They hosted hustle parties at St. Mary's Recreation Center on 145th St. and St. Ann's Ave, in 1974. Those parties ended on October 1974. However, it was the venue that produced some of the best hustle dancers in New York City, who would help spread the dance in nightclubs throughout New York City in late 1974.

In 1975 music business entrepreneur, Marty Angelo created the first all hustle dance television show entitled, Disco Step-by-Step. Each one-hour show featured top hustle dancers and two 10-minute instructional segments that allowed viewers to learn how to hustle dance in the privacy of their own living rooms. One of the first shows featured a young Billy Fajardo and the Disco Dance Dimensions. Many of the show's video clips can be found on YouTube. Marty Angelo also created the Hustle Hall of Fame online list of dancers in 2000 that he eventually turned over to Ron Bess and Mark James.

Van McCoy's song
The original Latin Hustle started being developed in late 1972 by Puerto Rican Teenagers in the South Bronx and by 1974 was being done all over New York and the Tri-State area, and by 1976 became an International Dance Sensation. Van McCoy and the Soul City Symphony's song "The Hustle" became a hit in 1975, reaching the #1 spot on both the Billboard Hot 100 and Hot Soul Singles charts. Tipped off by DJ David Todd, McCoy sent his partner Charlie Kipps Jr.to the Adam's Apple discotheque in New York City's East Side. And "The Hustle" reached the top of the Billboard Pop Singles chart the week ending July 26, 1975. Van McCoy with The Stylistics got disco songs such as "Disco Baby", "Can't Give You Anything", "Love is the Answer" and "Funky Weekend". Van McCoy and Charlie Kipps produced David Ruffin also.

Depiction in Saturday Night Fever
The 1977 disco movie Saturday Night Fever (the sound track includes Tavares, Yvonne Elliman, Bee Gees, Kool & the Gang, KC & the Sunshine Band, The Trammps ) showed both the line and partner forms of hustle, as well as a dance referred to as the "tango hustle" (invented for that film by Deney Terrio, according to the DVD commentary). Although the popularity of the movie faded quickly as the hype of the movie died down, the hustle and the step-by-step dance has continued even after the Disco Sucks movement and is still a "global social dance" and it took its place beside swing, salsa, mambo, cha-cha-cha, tango, rumba, bolero, nightclub two-step and other partner dances in America.

New York hustle
The couple dance form of hustle is usually called The Hustle but is frequently referred to by other names including "The Latin hustle" or "New York Hustle". It has some resemblance to, and steps in common with, Mambo and Salsa. As in the Latin dances, couples tend to move more on the dance floor, as opposed to following a line of dance as in foxtrot.

One similarity between hustle and swing is that the lead takes the back-forward steps from his left foot; however it is not exactly a rock-step (there is no rocking action because of speed) and if the dance is taught by counting, the steps happen at the beginning of the count – "and-one, two, three" rather than at the end of the count as in swing – "left, right, rock-step". However, those who originally developed this dance never used step counts, everything was developed by sight and sound starting in 1972.

The dance is somewhat unusual rhythmically because of the syncopation it is associated with. Most dances are danced with either 4/4 or 3/4 music with counting to match, with either a triple or duple base depending on the dance. The Latin Hustle is generally danced to 4/4 music but counted as a six-beat pattern. The most common Latin Hustle counting pattern is "&1 2 3 &1 2 3", meaning "LR L R LR L R" in the leader's pattern and the natural opposite of the follower's pattern. However, the syncopation in three-count hustle also be danced: 1&23, 12&3, or 123&.

Common steps

 * Basic – similar to the basic from single-step swing, except rock-step is at beginning
 * Turn – 180 degrees clockwise turn taken after rock-step, between 2 and 3 counts, followed by a rock-step
 * Left Turn – 180 degrees counterclockwise turn taken after rock-step, between 1 and 2 counts, followed by a rock-step
 * Side Break – lead sends follow out still holding her left hand, then picks her back up
 * Wheel – couple in double hand-hold, pumps arms like a bellows; couple as a whole rotates 180 degrees clockwise
 * Inside Turn or Loop Turn – similar to the loop turn from swing; follower twirls 360 degrees counterclockwise
 * Wrap – similar to wrap from the western swing but the footing is the same as a half turn for the hustle
 * Two hand turn – uses 180 degrees turn footing, before the step the lead takes the followers right hand in his, then proceeds as if completing a wrap but changes back to mirror two hand position halfway through the step.

Video clips

 * Clip (in WMV format) showing some of the basic step variations of today's hustle
 * Partner dance video (in MOV format) showing a very smooth hustle; and two men and one woman dancing hustle (in AVI format); both from Hustle Dance Club

title: Hustle (dance)


text: User talk:68.187.157.140

title: User talk:68.187.157.140