User talk:Hibrido Mutante

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! RashersTierney (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Jacques Derrida[edit]

Reply from User talk:RashersTierney#Derrida: The Quarrel with John Searle

Extensive quotes such as these, 1 and 2, can be problematic for several reasons. See WP:COPYVIO and WP:UNDUE just for a start. There really is no need to take such a substantial amount of material from a single source. Please also see WP:REF for a tutorial on how to correctly reference. It would also be good practice to flag up major flaws, as you see them, in advance at the Talk Page to find out the views of others interested in the topic. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Deconstruction[edit]

Dear Hibrido, thanks so much for your recent contribution to the deconstruction page. It is a page that needs a lot of work. You've clearly put a lot of effort into a lucid explanation of many aspects of the topic and there are some really great quotations in the material you added. It would however be most helpful if you could properly reference the many quotations that you have used. The quotations need proper references and it would be easiest for the contributing author to add them. Such heavy use of quotations is a bit of a style problem - perhaps you could summarise some of the points and move the actual quotations to footnotes at the bottom of the page (with the appropriate citations)? I'm not sure the section title "Schematic Descriptions" is an accurate or helpful description of the material that you have added - can you think of a better one? Also, it would be helpful if you could use the term deconstruction more often in the section you are developing in order to show novice readers how your exposition relates to the topic that they are trying to learn about. Any thoughts about how the overall page should be structured? Good work Seferin (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Hibrido - I've been looking over the material that you're continuing to develop on the deconstruction page and trying to think about the structure of the page overall. It's improving nicely and you should keep up the good work (if you have the time!). At the moment the main body of the text starts with the "Schematic Descriptions" section and I'm not sure what the role of this section is in the structure of the page as a whole. It introduces many important points to help people understand deconstruction but I don't think it makes the relation between these points and deconstruction clear enough to the reader at the moment. I could start editing this section with this in mind but I don't want to start pushing the material your adding in a particular direction without coming to some agreement with you about what the direction should be.
You mention Saussure first and that suggests an emphasis on language. Should the section introduce a theory of language and present deconstruction as following on from that theory of language? If so it should have an appropriate lead sentence letting the reader know this. Something along the lines of "Deconstruction emerges from the theory of language known as structural linguistics advanced by Ferdinand de Saussure..."
That would help give the reader an immediate sense of the relevance of what they are reading. The main problem with that approach is that it ignores Derrida's early work on the late Husserl. Ultimately I would like the page on deconstruction to reflect the emergence of textual deconstruction from phenomenological deconstruction. Before Derrida engages with Saussure's structural linguistics he is negotiating a phenomenological ontology that already involves the question of transcendental constitution, passive synthesis, the non-originary origin, socio-linguistic sedimentation and de-sedimentation, the deconstruction of the metaphysics of subjectivity and so on. I think it would be misleading and impoverishing of the page to ignore this aspect of the topic but the number of themes tends to sprawl and immediate relevance to the theme of deconstruction must be the guiding principle.
I'm less keen than you are to attempt to situate Derrida within the French intellectual context of the 60s and involve discussions of Hyppolite, Canguillem and Cavaille etc. The best that can be achieved is contextual association without any clear direct impact on the written work. Personally my preference would be to stick with the most important influences that Derrida works with around the emergence of the term deconstruction in his work (Husserl, Heidegger, Foucault, Levinas, Saussure, Freud, Hegel etc.) Best wishes 2.121.214.226 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Hibrido, Thanks for continuing to edit the page on deconstruction. Changing the title of the first section to "From différance to deconstruction" was a good idea because it connects the section directly with the theme. On the other hand it kind of suggests that first there was différance and then there was deconstruction in Derrida's work. It's true that there would be no deconstruction without différance but différance does not have a clear priority over deconstruction of any kind. If we consider first the record of the original published materials one first finds de-construction in "De la grammatologie (I)" published at the end of 1965 and différance in "De la grammatologie (II)" published at the start of 1966. But for me this article in two parts is already too late in Derrida's work to begin an account of either of these terms. There is a history of work by Derrida where the motifs that will come to be tied to the terms différance and deconstruction have already begun to take shape. The movement is therefore not so much from différance to deconstruction as from phenomenology (where language had become a central theme and problem for both Husserl and Heidegger) to the grammatological opening.
I think the first section of the article needs to be concerned with phenomenology and deconstruction and then developed into the material on the De la grammatologie period. Without this section I believe the scope of deconstruction will always be misunderstood as a textual practice in the conventionally narrow sense of the term text. I will write this section if you don't get round to it before me (I have some deadlines at the moment).
One should be careful to involve a figure like Nietzsche as a core influence on the emergence of terms like différance and deconstruction in Derrida's writing. Derrida refers to Nietzche in the "Différance" paper but Nietzsche for him is the thinker of the eternal return of the same - which suggests Nietzsche is really being encountered through Heidegger here - and Derrida doesn't publish any actual work on Nietzsche until after the "Différance" paper...which is far too late in my consideration for Nietzsche to be of urgent importance to an account of either différance or deconstruction. One could write of Neitzsche and Derrida as if Derrida was inspired by Nietzsche but this, for me, would always be vague and speculative. It would ignore the actual historicity of Derrida's writing. Basically I think that appeal to the context within which a philosophers work emerges has only a weak explanatory power unless it is made quite specific by tying it directly to the work that actually took place.
Leonard Lawlor explored the importance of Jean Hyppolite to Derrdia's work in Derrida and Husserl but Joshua Kates considered this investigation by Lawlor to be a dead end in Essential History. I'm not in a position to arbitrate between them on this matter but it does give me pause. Are you familiar with work that illustrates how Hyppolite is specificaly important as an influence on Derrida's work? If not then the commentary on the context of intellectual culture within which Derrida began to work might be better placed on the Derrida rather than the Deconstruction page.
Sorry for just discussing things with you more than getting stuck in at the moment but I have some deadlines at the moment. Keep up the good work, the page needs it and the topic deserves it! Seferin (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Editwarring[edit]

I have had to report you to the editwarring notice board here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll do the same about you Shame on you Mister. Shame on you!

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at John Searle. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Dear Sir

I'm suprised by your decision. Can you explain me why this paragraph was deleted as "criticsm" to Searle's page?

"He continued arguing how problematic was establishing the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[37] He would finally argue that the indispensable question would then become "what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc."? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites, "are not things found in nature, but symbolic inventions, institutions that,in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.[38]"

Here is the quotation to support it.

That is one theoretical consequence or implication that I wanted first of all to recall to Searle, and its effects on his entire discourse are, I believe, non delimitable. In the description of the structure called "normal," "normative," "central," "ideal,"this possibility must be integrated as an essential possibility.

The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic. It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general.

what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)?

This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

Jacques Derrida, Afterwords" in Limited, Inc. (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p. 133

During discution other editors confirmed it is pertinent (they discovered it during the discution because, in fact, they are not well informed about the subject. They assumeit during discussion, but they don't change attitude) and, from what I could read, there was no real arguments supporting censor this.As it is now it doesn't give any criticism whatsoever.

I appealed yesterday to "dispute resolution" (I'm not sure if I have done it right).At the same time I asked otger editors to stop deleting, to try to rewrite...

Is it you that decide? Do you have to argue or you "got the power" and that is it? Will you give an explanation in "talk page for future visitors (or Ithe discussion will also be deleted). Honnestlly I don't know.I'm not used to this kind of behaviour. I'm shocked.

One more thing. You said I "logged out" but I didn't do that. Maybe it was because I changed computer (from home to work) and forgot to login. But I've always went back and signed all my Comments and assume it was me. I don't have anything to be ashamed off. I tried to give arguments, to support each sentence, to appeal oter editors to do it better (not delete it), I accepted they manipulated what I was saying. What could I've done better?

Thank you --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You're blocked by Salvio giuliano (Salvio) and you seem to be addressing him. But it's most unlikely that he'll pay attention to what you are saying, because/while you are blocked. If you believe that the block was wrong or is unnecessary, then the thing to do is to argue this as persuasively as possible in the specific way that's suggested in the template that appears above ("If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by [...]"). Don't argue that you were in a dispute in which the other side was wrong and you were right (no matter how true this might be): doing so will not help you. Skip any emotional language, and be concise. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hibrido Mutante, I blocked you not because of your opinions, but because of your behaviour: you were blocked for you kept repeatedly reverting other people's edits.

You were caught in a content dispute – regarding which, by the way, I have no opinion whatsoever, I must admit – and, instead of calmly discussing the issue, you kept on readding the contentious edit. This is considered disruptive and, as you have witnessed, leads to blocks.

By the way, when I say you edited while logged out, I refer to the edits made by 89.152.84.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I believe you when you say that this was merely due to an error on your part and that you did not mean to mislead anyone, but this does not change the fact that you kept making the very same contentious edit despite being aware of the ongoing dispute.

When this block expires, please use Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods instead of edit warring. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir Please, believe me that I didn’t want to edit without sign in. I changed computer in the morning and I just forgot. Could you change that in the "history" (and, please, remove it from the messages about the reasons I was blocked, if you can. As you agree, that is not the main reason why you have done so). I would be very grateful if you could change that. I don’t mind to be blocked, but by the “good reasons”.

If you permit me to defend myself (if you are steel paying attention), in my humble perspective in the "conflit", I didn't "revert others people editing". I edit first and so it looks to me it was other people that "revert my edits". Unless deleting is not considered "revert", just "deleting" :)

I discussed very calmly. Basically I only quote Derrida, and made some irony :) Maybe I shouldn't have said that other editors “looked” they didn't know what they were talking about (and the episode when I paraphrase Searle was not nice). I’m really sorry for that.

But... it is strange that you consider normal the behaviour of the other parts in the “contention” that kept deleting my material without real explanations (and in fact making the all section silly because there was in fact no real criticism). They didn't try to rewrite, they didn't really come with new material, they were not able to say it was not pertinent. Why don't you consider that are the "others" that kept making "edit despite being aware of the ongoing dispute". If you check history, this material was there for some time until it was deleted one week ago (I was really surprised no one acted like this before). You can consider that it was their editing that was in fact vandalism and should be banned.

Could you explain me better you criterions when you have to decide in this issues (who is the aggressor and who is the victim? The one who deletes or the one that edits. Do you support censorship or do you support excess, even when 100% verifiable).

I’m really curious to understand how administrators in the wikipedia can handle this kind of disputes (I saw it happen in the past (foruns, etc) and I know it was not easy). You really become a judge without jurisprudence to support you. It must be difficult (please consider this as pure curiosity about how this "Wisdom of Crowds", "collaborative filter", etc works and all the sociological issues related to it. You understand that an administrator here becomes a judge about "what is "normal""nonfiction standard discourse", what is "transgression", "parasitism, etc. Specially, all subjects related with relations between "power and knowledge". We all know that criterion are not are not "things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional". ;)

I hope I'm not boring you and I understand if you don't have the time to rely but I would really appreciate to understand better how administrators deal with this subject here, every day :)

Have a nice evening sir

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is impossible to modify either the edit history of an article – we can only hide your IP address, if you wish, but not "reattribute" those edits to your account – or your block log. I cannot modify the reason for your block, but, if someone should bring the subject up in future, feel free to point them to my message here on your talk page where I say I do believe you were not trying to mislead anybody. I assumed you were trying because many editors try to pull that: they log out, hoping they can continue edit warring without being blocked...

Regarding the question of how we act during an edit war, the first policy we follow is WP:3RR: a person who reverts more than three times in a 24-hour period is usually blocked. 3-rr is not an entitlement, however, and a person can be edit warring even if he does not technically breach it. When only a limited number of people is edit warring, we usually just block them; when, on the other hand, many editors are reverting each other and nobody is approaching 3-rr, instead of blocking the whole bunch, we tend to just fully protect the article, so that nobody can edit it and they are forced to start a discussion on the article's talk page.

The best approach, when you're about to be caught in an edit war, is to follow WP:BRD: you make a bold edit, someone else reverts it and, then, instead of undoing the revert, you just start a thread on the article's talk page. That way you'll never get blocked. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

-- Thank you! You are very nice. And thanks for spearing your time answering my doubts. Really. It really makes a difference about your trust in the "system" ;) . I understand it better now.

Meanwhile, I want to understand more and more about how all this voluntary process can be able to protect minorities, if in fact that is possible. Can he? (if an article is protected by a "tribe", how can the system guarantee that a minority voice can be heard among the majority? Does digital environment really change anything about that? If not why? If yes, how and how can we guarantee it). If its voice is considered "abnormal" does it really has a chance? Is the "verifiable" content enough? That is only centered in "truth" and "facts" as if that could be distinct from "worthy", valuable", "interesting"(Bourdieu and his team have done a profound work about this in the beginning of the 90's: "Les Miserables" - I will not go with it in all the line, but is an incredible work very well supported in terms of field work, interviews, statistics - the voice of the unheard inside the "welfare state" and how the system is deaf to them.. they don't even know "how to talk properlly", how to wright, how to articulate their own revolt)..

This are issues that some social scientists are interested when discussing "processional" and "consensual" (liberal, "analytical", "methodological individualism") approaches in social systems in general (and "crowd sourcing","wisdom of the crowds", "collaborative filter", "autopoiesis", and that kind of stuff, in particular).

We all know there is no "perfect system", I know if there is something interesting about wikipedia is that it is learning (but it can also be crystallizing status quos). We must avoid a certain "pathos of denouncement" (I don't know if you can say it like this in English) common to some social scientists. But we must also avoid voluntarism and naif approaches (so common in a certain "anarcho-digitals" and neoliberalism) that seems to forget symbolic violence and that every time there is "knowledge", there are arguments and references to "truth" (if there is truth it is the battle for truth, said Bourdieu) there are "power relations", everytime a "conceptual difference", a "categorical difference", a "theoretical distinction" is institutionalized as a norm, the normal way, the shared normality, you can detect an hierarchic relation (a "pratical" one) being established between the two notions (and someone, somewhere will be losing... some say). Maybe only naif philosophers believe in pure heads (in one side) and pure hands (in an other side) when they think about "how to do things with words" and about "speech acts" LOL (I can say this here... I'm in "my page". I swear, I will not say it in Searle's talk page ;) promise

To define what is and what isn't "common sense" and "official" and "normal" (the definition, the description, the relative value, what matters and what doesn't, what is pertinent and what isn't) is not only a theoretical gesture but also a political one with practical consequences.

Theory and Methods that are blind to all relation between knowledge and power are of small pertinence to the social sciences. And this has big epistemological consequences (and, I would say, philosophical ones ;)

Do you discuss this king of stuff between at the "administrator level" (are you aware of good academic work being done in this field related to crowd sourcing?)

Wikipedia is wonderful to make some research about this (not only what is happening but has happened and how it keeps and rewrites its history in each article and "article networks"). It's beautiful in fact (it takes Bourdieu's, Foucault's, Deleuze's, Derrida's theoretical framework and make it visible for everyone to see it happen :)

Believe me. For people studying this subjects this is one of the best tools to develop "field work". It is happening everywhere around and we get it in digital support, with ours... you can easelly do "qualitative research, discourse Anallise, statistic linguistics, profiling (ok we don't really have "socio-demographic in the traditional way). And it is happening in articles about philosophy, mathematics, physics as much as religion, politics, economy, sociology, "cultural studies"). I have to admit this episode in Searle's article is one of the best ever (not only it confirms hypothesis how majorities rationalize information to delete (supprime) rights (and even presence)to the parasitic minority that harms their core paradigms(with all the group reinforcement conducts, etc in place) an it also reinforces theoretical choices (epistemological and philosophical framework).. in self-reference... very beautiful in did.

Well :) I'm not expecting you to answer me (not even read me :) I imagine you have a lot to do (and I know, I talk a lot. Hoary is right about that, concision is not a virtue of mine LOL

Thanks a lot for your advice about BRD (really). I will take some more time understanding conventions and how conflicts can be handled around here. This is all very interesting in did. It was very nice to meet you Cheers --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Hibrido Mutante, I think it is commendable that you are showing willingness to learn and understand how wikipedia works. It is of course a field study in relations of knowledge and power - in the particular case you were a part of it was clearly your lack of familiarity with the codes that one has to use on wikipedia that made it easy for the system to "overpower" you. You will find that here on wikipedia - as in most other places - there is a norm for communication but it is of course not fixed but constantly being negotiated. You entered a negotiation but your lack of familiarity with the system made it impossible for you to change the norm. The kind of communication system we strive for here is closer to Habermas' system of civic discourse than to Deleuze or Derrida's free flows of ideas, or to Foucaults discursive imperialism for that matter. Although it is a negotiation how close each particular case ends up to each of those models. In the future when someone questions your edits, it is the best idea to go to the talkpage and present arguments and strive to compromise. Attempts to force one's personal will through will almost always be met with stronger force (in terms of numbers of oppositions and sanctions such the block you are now experiencing). It is a pretty steep learning curve to become part of the community - and it often requires a lot of humility in the first attempts in order to be succesful. I wish you the best and look forward to seeing you at the talk page of John Searle's biography when the block expires. 20:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)·ʍaunus·snunɐw·


Jean-Michel Salanskis[edit]

I've written an article about Jean-Michel Salanskis, I hope it does not misrepresent its subject, if it does I'd be happy if you let me know so I can correct it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know you probably shouldn't edit that article directly if you are in fact Dr. Salanskis, but feel free to leave suggestions on the talkpage. Also that is a most impressive bibliography I must say. I have doubts about how to translate "eth-analyse du fait juif", perhaps you could suggest a good translation?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012[edit]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at John Searle, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Your accusation here is unjustified. Given that you've been blocked for edit-warring before, I suggest you be careful in your edits to that article. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You're being discussed by administrators[edit]

Hello Hibrido Mutante. Please see WP:ANI#John Searle. You can respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes. I do apologize for not notifying·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hibrido Mutante for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Searle. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hibrido[edit]

I can see that you are now revert warring on several pages. The only thing you can possibly gain from that is that your account will be blocked from editing - you could take that as proof of your points about abusive authority and knowledge - but that would be a rationalization of the fact that you simply didn't follow the social rules. If instead of reverting you go to the talkpage and continue to discuss and build a logical rational argument (the kind of reasoning the authorities here value) you will stand a much better chance of being able to actually challenge the kinds of knowledge that wikipedia can contain. Just a piece of advice. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Manus - Several pages? hum... I reverted Polisher of Cobwebs editing in February, because he deleted all my contributions to John Searle in December. I have to thank you we were able to prove him the subject was important enough to be mentioned. We are now trying to get a consensus about the last 2 paragraphs (9 sentences) concerning Derrida's arguments. I accepted to delete 3 sentences from 9 to get a consensus with Polisher.
Polisher of Cobwebs did not argue anymore. And I thought we were going to get a consensus.
Last week I reverted Drmies that came to "Deconstruction" article and deleted not only my contributions but the contributions from many other editors during the years and substituted it by his understanding of "philosophy of literary critic"... I started immediately a processes of getting consensus, based on what I have learned as being the best way to proceed.
He didn't answer but... Polisher of Cobwebs (!!!) appeared and reverted based on a quite strange argument (it is not a dictionary!!).
More strange was the fact that Drmies appeared in the John Searle's article and started a section "Good bye Derrida debate" (a clearly aggressive and unilateral section, ignoring the process of consensus we were trying to build together). He didn't have the time to answer me in the Deconstruction article (where now was Polisher arguing in his name) but he had the time to come to the John Searle's one, and impose his agenda (just start it again and ignore what we have accomplished).
So "several pages" are in fact 2 pages... you can also say that 50% of the articles I contributed to in December, are now being reverted.
I'm trying to follow the "social rules" here, but it looks there are editors that think this means I should submit myself to their authority and just shut up when they say so)
But thanks for your advice. The last time you came here I was banned (I believe it was because I forgot to log in, at least it was what the administrator told me)
But please, lets just continue the discussion in John Searle's article. I'm expecting your logical rational argument about the 6 sentences I've proposed (the kind of reasoning the authorities here value). If you accept this process you stand a much better chance of being able to actually challenge my contributions (and I'm sure they are also the kind of knowledge that wikipedia can contain).
Thanks


--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week[edit]

Further to this report, I have blocked your account for 1 week. User:Sonduarte and User:Sofia Almeida are obviously secondary accounts under your operation or direction, but using alternative accounts to subvert legitimate talk page discussion is unacceptable. The use of multiple accounts to create an illusion of support in content discussions, or to browbeat your "opponents", subverts the article-writing process—and in future will attract an indefinite block from Wikipedia. AGK [•] 23:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


This is crazy LOL So their ip adress is mine? They are talkin on my name? LOL (SonDuarte doesn't even live in my city LOL
This is so so ridiculous. Shame on you sirs. Shame on you. I'm really bad impressed with this...now I really know what is abuse of power... you are lying and you know it.

Best regards

January 2014[edit]

Hello. Please stop messing up the formatting of pages and stop removing tags and content without a justification.[1][2] Your editing is not constructive. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more explicit, please? Thanks Best regards

I will justify my reverts on the respective talk pages. You do not have to give me lessons on policy though. It is as though you do not assume good faith. The policy I applied was WP:BRD. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
IT really lookd you do. who do you think you are? the owner of wikipedia' Of truth? who are you to revert all the work I've done??
Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research. Every editor has to follow the same basic policies (such as WP:NOR) and procedures (such as WP:BRD). --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
please, do some homework and do not try to talk about what you don't know. Please, respect the contribution from others (that are able to respect article policies.
Thanks
Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I have read this essay. In this case, however, you are the one who needs to take it into consideration. Consider this: most of your edits since you started editing Wikipedia have been reverted by so many editors. Do you have an explanation for this? Please do not patronize me and consider the possibility that your edits are not constructive. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
"Positions: Interview with Jean-Louis Houdebine and Guy Scarpetta"
(outdent) Please assume good faith and please stop suggesting that all editors besides you are incompetent—this is a borderline personal attack. Also note that edit warring will lead nowhere. I am quoting WP:BRD: "If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but could incur sanctions, such as a temporary block. The objective is to seek consensus, not force one's own will upon other editors." —Omnipaedista (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
it is not a personal attack. You made a serious accusation based in an incompetent argument (you proved to be incompetent). You should apologize. You tried to "justify your reverts on the respective talk pages" accusing me of "publishing my original research". I proved you were wrong. You have to give us much more explanations.I had many disputes with Manus around the debate between Derrida and Searle (he also decided to delete my contributions many months after I made it). But in the end we were able to get a consensus and what is there today results from it. Most of the article about Derrida, Deconstruction and the final version in Searle about this subject have contributions from me. It is a fact. I don't think you are competent to edit this article and you proved so. Please, stop editing this articles. I'm sure you can find others where you can help. Thanks.
ah... it is not an "essay"... it is an interview lol ... and, if you read it, could you please explain "us" why you came here saying "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research" lol...

(outdent) It is an essay and you will have to take it into consideration. The way you are formatting your contributions is against the Manual of Style. Regarding content, see my latest comments here and here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not important.. but why are you saying it "is" an essay... when it is an interview?
I'm sorry if I made some mistakes in formatting or deleting one paragraph(I explained myself in the talk pages of each article and corrected the parts I've deleted).
"Positions: Interview with Jean-Louis Houdebine and Guy Scarpetta" is an interview indeed. But I was referring to the essay: "Wikipedia:Competence is required". In any case, I have replied here Talk:Deconstruction#Unjustified reverting. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)