User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 2

File:AllegoryWisdomStrength.PNG

Detail from the Allegory of Wisdom and Strength by Paolo Veronese (c. 1580).

File:AllegoryWisdomStrength.PNG

Detail from the Allegory of Wisdom and Strength by Paolo Veronese (c. 1580).

Seasons Greatings

So it's not October!!!

Yours, etc. --Ludvikus 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sample Wikipedia Infobox: Laurie Anderson

Yours, etc.--Ludvikus 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Yours truly,--Ludvikus 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[1][2][3] [4][5][6] [7][8][9] [10][11][12] [13][14][15] [16][17][18] [19][20][21] [22][23][24] [25][26][27] [28][29][30] [31][32][33] [34][35][36] [37][38][39] [40][41][42] [43][44][45]

Sample Wikipedia Laurie Anderson Infobox

[46][47][48] [49][50][51] [52][53][54] [55][56][57] [58][59][60]

Ludvikus/Archive 2

Sample Serial The Times (London) Inforbox

File:The Times.jpg

File:X: Times.jpg Front page from a November 2004 edition
Type	Daily newspaper
Format	Compact (Tabloid)
Owner(s)	News International
Editor	Robert Thomson
Founded	1785
Political alignment	Centre-right
Headquarters	Wapping, London
Website	www.timesonline.co.uk

• Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Please be more careful when creating your own archive!!!!!!

Why did you move my archive page to your user space? You took my history with it and destroyed my archive. Now all I have is a redirect to your page. I can't recreate it without deleting the existing page and moving your archive back after I revert it. Thanks a lot. Why didn't you just copy the page?

I am going to ask User:Gwernol for help in fixing this problem.

---

BTW: The archive template links to my talk page -- not yours. I suggest you copy the template. -Will Pittenger 02:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't fix this by the time I login tomorrow, I may fix it for you. I would rather you did it yourself. That way you control the name of the template, wording, layout, and so on.

---

I have moved the archive back to Will's talk page where it belongs. Please do be more careful in the future. This could easily look like vandalism. Thanks, Gwernol 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Gwernol fixed the problem almost instantly. I was barely done adding my request when it was complete. Please note that I added a comment to the next item. If you use that system, it will create the archive page for you. Use my archive settings as an example. Use the code from George's page, but where I have my username, put yours instead. -Will Pittenger 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your can archive without all the work

If you want to auto-archive, check out George Money's Auto Archive code. It has instructions here. -Will Pittenger 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you use the auto archive system, please let it create your archive page. Save yourself the trouble. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

About the comment you left for Gwernol

I relocated the comment you left on Gwernol's user page [61] to his Talk page [62]. I removed your inclusion of the RC Patrol userbox as it would not be appropriate on a Talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't change what others wrote in talk pages

Please don't change what other users wrote in talk pages. When you suggested that I add {{User wikipedia:RC Patrol}}, you edited an existing section rather than using the + tab. You also reformatted the section using ----. As I have repeatedly told you, most editors frown on use of ----, including me. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I already have {{User wikipedia:RC Patrol}} on my page.

I already have {{User wikipedia:RC Patrol}} on my page. -Will Pittenger 06:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW: When you want to suggest an user box, please use the template {{tl}} as I have done. When you transclude the template, you add categories to the page. {{tl}} simply links to the user box page. For user namespace templates (like {{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/WCIC}}), use {{[[Page Name]]}}. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Oye Vey!"

I make-a da joke-a. They can't all be winners..... Gzuckier 16:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at it again, i think you may have misconstrued; the "The article deteriorates ... gets gutted before the first period." comment was some random anonhole. I couldn't resist adding "The Protocols of the Elders of the Non-Goyim suggests just such a strategy!!" in an attempt to out-satirize him. Gzuckier 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

You may want to check out WP:USERBOX. Also, the "Sixtyseven" is because my last name starts with "S".

While you're at it, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

And don't link every single word to a separate article; it looks bad. DS 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references; cross-namespace redirects are to be avoided. Thanks. DS 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Missed My Halloween

I missed my Halloween celebration!!!

Ludvik to Ludvikus 17:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Disappearing image

I think it was probably deleted after an IfD, Ludvikus, but I didn't pay attention so I can't provide a link. Sorry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Praemonitus Praemunitus and Praemonitus praemunitus

Hello,

I see you've restored the original content at Praemonitus Praemunitus and eventually put the disambiguation back at Praemonitus praemunitus. Since I think you intended to make the former about the book, I removed the other content from that page and left a link to the disambiguation. I'm not sure whether we need an article about that edition of the book or whether it should be merged to Protocols of Zion - what do you think? (Reply here, or on the article talk page, or on my talk page, whichever you like; I'm watching all of them.) --Alynna 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

REPRODUCED FROM YOUR USER PAGE:

I believe we absolutely do need an article on this edition of thr "book." Protocols of Zion is already too long an article. And it concentrates much on the content and distribution of this infamous text. I want Wikipedia to present the form and actually facts relating to the literary event which produced the Warrant for Genocide.

It is already a practice of WP have articles on historically important books. Unfortunately, this ugly and stupid book has seen the light of day and - like a germ, bacteria, or virus, has reproduced itself in many forms - and now lives on the WEB. So I want Wikipedia to be, inter alia, the ultimate source of facts about this plagiarism.

Also, I believe that Wikipedia is extremely democratic in its nature, so that what its founders want it to be, and what it is already becoming, are two different things. In brief, WP is becoming the ultimate (at least) source of knowledge for the commom man (and woman) about anything which holds a significant interest for people.

I wish I could write like Lincoln, or D'Israeli in my first draft, but I cannot. English, like in the case of Conrad, was not my first language. But he had a linguistic genius of the kind that's not mine.

So I hope to get the asaistance of other WP editors and writers to improve or develop my articles further!!!

Best Wishes, and Seasons Greetings, Yours truly, Ludvikus 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, I wish you luck in writing more about that edition. I don't know anything about it, but I'm always available for cleanup and wikification questions. Happy editing, Alynna 23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Book

Night

Night English edition cover
Author	Elie Wiesel
Original title	Un di Velt Hot Geshvign
Language	Yiddish
Subject	Autobiography, Holocaust
Publication date	1958
Publication place	Argentina
Published in English	1960
Media type	Print (paperback)
ISBN	ISBN 0-553-27253-5

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

WPBooks

The following Template is used on a Talk/Discussion Page to Flag a Book review.

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 03:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ludvikus 03:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved:Ludvikus 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Velikoe v malom

Transliteration is OK. My translation of the TOC (my theological English is sorta poor)

TOC (my tranlation)

	Page
Preface	V-VIII
Preface to the second edition	IX-X
I. How the Orthodox person [AB - Nilus??] was converted to the Orthodox Christian Faith	1-31
II. One of the modern miracles of the Father Sergius [AB-Sergius of Radonezh??]	33-41
III. Journey to the Sarov Hermitage (Pustyn') and Serafimo-Dnievsky Convent	43-99
IV. Acolyte to the Mother of God and Seraphim [AB - most probably Seraphim of Sarov ] (Simbirsk Judge of Peace Nikolay Alexandrovich Motovilov)	101-166
V. The Saint Spirit obviously settled on Saint Seraphim of Sarov in His talks with Simbirsk land Owner and Judge Nikolay Alexandrovich Motovilov	167-207
VI. Father Seraphim and the Process of a murderer (Memoirs of a Lutheran)	209-221
VII. Commandment from the life of a starets from Optina Pustyn father Amvrosy	223-231
VIII. Father Egor Cherkessky	233-269
IX. One of the mysteries of Godly Home-building	271-289
X. Heavenly convents	281-293
XI. What is awaiting Russia (from prophesies of Saint Seraphim)	295-304
XII. Antichrist as a close political possibility	305-417

---

• Please check the translations on my talk Alex Bakharev 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK & I'll post/past them here, below:

Part 12: протоколы засѣданій сіонскихъ мудрецовъ

Can you give me the WORD-FOR-WORD translation of the above?

• That's title of chapter/part 12 according to the British Library.

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 06:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Actually, I know 3 0f the 4 words:

• протоколы = Protocols
  • Yes or even minutes as meeting minutes
• засѣданій = ?????
  • Meetings, conferenses
• сіонскихъ = Zionist
  • or at least Zion
• мудрецовъ = Elders/Sages/Wise Men
  • Yes

---

Ludvik: --Ludvikus 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Alex Bakharev 08:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks! So now I know for sure that it was Nilus who gaves us these meanings! --Ludvikus 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Pasted/Posted:--Ludvikus 13:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'll PAST IT on the Velikoe v malom page. Ludvikus 13:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nilus

I've cropped the image for you. I hope that's what you were after. Paul B 19:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Double double Warhol Warhol

It's a little bit goofy, but certainly Warhol himself wouldn't mind (you know, it might be incautious to suppose anything about what he would think). I don't think you'd get community approval but you could certainly try by bringing it up on the talk page. As a related idea, has there ever been a portrait done of Warhol that is multiple? I can't think of one, but maybe there is ... Antandrus (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't see why one can't be both a nature lover and an admirer of an artistic and media genius :). I'm as fascinated by his personality as I am by his work, and his story -- such as the Valerie Solanas episode -- is wilder than most fiction. As of the doubled pic -- I don't think it really helps anything, since our point is to make an encyclopedia article rather than a tribute page (in that case, if you were putting up a website about Warhol... definitely yes). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rudolph_Valentino_1_-_Touchup.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rudolph_Valentino_1_-_Touchup.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

---

• Also submitted this TAG with image today!

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:0803217277.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:0803217277.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Ludvikus 15:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Earl Bathurst

When you create articles for peers it would help if you follow NC to keep them in standard format. ie Seymour Henry Bathurst should be at Seymour Henry Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst Alci12 13:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Erk, that's my fault for copying an pasting from your original article to without checking the link. Sorry. The link needs to be in the format: forname surname, ordinal of title. But from within the article you list the names in full ie:

[[Seymour Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst|Seymour Henry Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst]] That code produces the link below which is the one within the article that remained red. Notice how the first part links to the actual proper location and the second is the bit you get read in the link:

Seymour Henry Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst

SO you can see your article is not where the link points. I'll try to get this sorted out for you. Alci12 14:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I've done it, and even given his Lordship, Seymour Henry Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst his Coat of Arms that is due him:

Arms of the Earls Bathurst.

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 14:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah well done, only just arrived back home so I wasn't going to have any chance until now Alci12 16:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would't worry about typos in user talk unless the meaning is lost. Arms look good, at some point when I have time to kill I'll start adding the blazons to these Alci12 16:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Image redundancy

I believe I replaced identical images, see: Image:Umberto Eco Eco.jpg and Image:Umberto Eco.jpg. I cannot tell a difference between the two images, which is why I tagged the first as redundant. If there is a difference, you should explain the difference between the two on both pages and put {{hangon}} on the CSD image. But again, I think they are identical which is why I swapped them in the article. --MECU≈talk 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Figure 5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Figure 5.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Octothorp Dispute

I have briefly looked over the issue in question, and it appears that Dicklyon does not oppose inclusion of the term Octothorp, however he does seem to take issue with your persistance of putting a heavier emphasis on (what appears to be) a more obscure term. The trend on Wikipedia is to name articles by their most common name, to make finding of information as easy as possible for someone who is not as versed in the technicalities of a specific subject. A perfect example is Elephantidae. This much longer and less commonly-known name redirects to what we commonly call the Elephant. While the former is the "proper" name, we instead go with the common name, as it's more easily remember. Now, in the case of Octothorp vs. Number sign, we are using what is much more commonly known. Until this dispute, I had personally never heard of the term "octothorp." This being said, can you see why other users would be hesitant to put such a heavy emphasis on this terminology, given its lesser-known usage?

Also, it is my personal policy to not interfere with a dispute, as it tends (more often than not) to show a more biased mediator who is coming on behalf of one party in a complaint. I therefore urge you to file an official Request for Mediation where this matter can be better sorted out.

Regards, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Titles

The Title of the Red book is Sionskie protokoly = Zion's protocols or Protocols of Zion. The word Sionskie is the adjective formed from the word Sion=Zion. A similar adjective from the word Zionist Russian: Sionist is Sionistskie (Сионистские). It is quite possible that in the beginning of the 20th century Zion meant not only the place but the Zionism as well (see e.g. Hovevei Zion).

The title of the yellow book is the same but written in the pre-1918 orthography. On the top there is Publishing House of His Excellency Prince I.K. Gorchakov "Down with the Evil". The the title. Then a photograph captioned as Jewish Government in Moscow and names (some are unreadable because of low resolution). In the bottom there is Paris and a year 19?7 (I cannot read the third digit) Alex Bakharev 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this, Alex. I am pretty sure the yellow book's title is "Jewish Government in Russia" - not "in Moscow", and the year is 1927. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:1978 Symbolic snake.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:1978 Symbolic snake.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mrs._Leslie_Fry.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mrs._Leslie_Fry.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ISBN

Hi, the first ISBN in the "works" section seems invalid. Are you able to check it? Rich Farmbrough 19:02 20 December 2006 (UTC).

• Michael Hagemeister. Rgds Rich Farmbrough, 21:49 21 December 2006 (GMT).

1911 Nilus Book (Antichrist & Protocols) Title Page

I've transcribed (my a bit illegible copy of) the above as follows:

               C. Hилycъ,
  
           Близъ rpядyщiй
             Aнтиҳpicтъ
  
  Tипографiя Свято-Tроицкой Cepriевoй Лавры.
   [Tip. Sviato-Troitskoi Sergievoi lavry]
  
            M О С К В А    1911.

Can you, who reads Russian, correct it, and translate it? Thanks. --Ludvikus 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My translation is below. Please note that I do not know how to spell words in the old orthografy, so there might be incorrected mistakes Alex Bakharev 20:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

S[ergey] Nilus

Close to[near, around] future Antichrist

Typography of Saint Troitse Sergiyeva Lavra.
[Tip. Sviato-Troitskoi Sergievoi lavry]

Moscow  1911.

Book covers

Answered at my talk page--thanks. Chick Bowen 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1912

Hi Ludvikus, I responded at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There were many reprints, so I am not surprised of that. What is amazing to me is that it was printed by a Church & Red Cross printing press. BTW, did the French text help? My French is almost nil. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss my comment [63] referring to Image:Nilus TheProtocols 1912 fullpg.jpg. BTW = By The Way. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Magician? It is the same page, simply cropped. I posted it the same day you have asked. Look, I am trying to remember where I got that image from. Earlier WP did not have such strict policy regarding images. Take it down if you think it is not credible, but asking the same question every day is not going to help. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Beckwith Company

OK - I assume there is more about the company to add. Springnuts 16:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I linked the "company" here. This company produced the SECOND US/American Edition of the Protocols of Zion in 1920. It is also associated with the pseudonym of Peter Beckwith. If there was any conspiracy associated with these Protocols, it was a conspiracy against the Jews. And this "company" was certain a tool in that regard. --Ludvikus 21:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Scatto2 - Poetry Reading.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Scatto2 - Poetry Reading.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Lvives sm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lvives sm.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Philosophy on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Alan.ca 13:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nesta Webster

I don't think I can move the article in this case, since the destination already exists as a redirect. I think you'll need to ask an administrator to do it, since it looks like the new article, as a redirect, needs to first be deleted. -- Hawaiian717 16:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom image

My problem with the image is that it was added to the talk page with no intelligible purpose. The talk page is for discussions of the content of the article, not for posting pictures. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In most cases, there is a general ban on the deletion of on-topic commentary of other users. However, off-topic material is subject to removal. This falls under that category.

Also, you may be interested to read up on Wikipedia policy regarding what is expected of introductions. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 22:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should read it. I found it helpful, myself. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Blank pages

Hello, please do not leave blank pages as you did with Holgen Pedersen as this gives the false impression there is an article there when there isn't. Please either move the article to a new title, redirect it to another article or have the page deleted by an administrator. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 13:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it was a spelling mistake, which happens. If you find you have created an article with the wrong title, you can move the page to a new title. If the article has already been written by someone else, you can include any new information in the new article, which leaves you with a redundant article (the one at the wrong location). If the title is a COMMON misspelling which many many people use, you can redirect it to the correct spelling to help others who are looking for the article at the wrong spelling (you do not need a redirect for every misspelling). Otherwise the article should be deleted rather than blanked because blanking leaves an entry in the encyclopedia which is of no value to anyone, clutters up the encyclopedia and causes a number of other problems. To have a page deleted which only you have contributed to, you can place the template {{db-author}} on the page, which places the article in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which will be seen by an administrator and the page will usually be deleted. There are a number of other ways to have a page deleted, which are set out at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Due to a number of issues, pages can only be deleted by administrators.

I hope that helps, and please ask if you have any more questions. mattbr³⁰ 14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know why the page '.' cannot be linked to or created, but this would be due to the MediaWiki software.

Regarding deleting a page, you personally cannot press a button to delete a page (neither can I), only users who have been given administrator rights can. This is because pages can only be deleted if they meet certain criteria or if they have the consensus of the community, and this is acted upon by an administrator. The administrator will have been trusted with the tools by the community and will be familiar with the deletion criteria and the general workings of the site. There would be a huge number of problems if everybody could delete pages (such as abuse by vandals, people involved in edit wars etc.) and the site would fall apart because articles would be deleted left, right and centre.

If YOU have created a page and YOU have been the only contributor, YOU can request to have it deleted by placing the {{db-author}} tag at the top of the page. This is one of the criteria for speedy deletion (G7), where the page can be suggested for deletion without discussion, which the deleting administrator agrees to (usually done within 24 hours, depending on the backlog). Otherwise, an article can be proposed for deletion (for uncontroversial deletions that do not meet the speedy criteria) or sent for discussion at articles for deletion, which take 5 to 7 days to complete. mattbr³⁰ 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your message, and for the compliments. I'm trying to ease in to Wikipedia slowly, as I've got so many other commitments, which is partly why I've been avoiding articles that demand large amounts of time and emotional energy — and Philosophy is near the top of that list. I'll have a look (though I suspect I'll be depressed), but I don't know how much I'll get involved yet. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year and...

...and sorry I had to RV you in Jewish Bolshevism. I started explaining at talk. I suggest a good thick book on the subject of Russian Revolutions, e.g. Richard Pipes or perhaps Robert Conquest. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear before, let me try again: please stop adding WP:OR. Holy Mother Russia has nothing to do with it. Do some reading before writing. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:906365 -Hadassa Ben-Itto-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:906365 -Hadassa Ben-Itto-.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 20:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No one expects you to fly to Israel to take a picture of her. However, since she is alive, her location is generally known and she makes appearances, someone could take a free image of her that we could use. That is the definition of replaceable that Wikipedia uses. You can fight it, and dispute the tag, but it will be a wasted effort as it is quite clearly replaceable. Many have tried before, but as long as she's alive and this photo isn't unique in any way, it will be deleted like many others for this reason. You may not agree with it, but it is policy. --MECU≈talk 22:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't keep images until someone keeps it. The thought is that by removing the image it will spur someone to get a free image because it's "missing", but while it is there, there's no "reason" to do so since it's already there. You can ask for permission, I forgot about that possibility. You can contact the copyright holder and ask if they will release the image under a free license; not for permission to use just on Wikipedia. "With Permission" uses are not valid either. We want it free, and if we can't have it free, we'll have nothing instead. You can get more advice and information about asking for release of the image by looking at: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Good luck! --MECU≈talk 23:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Manly" Former Vandal

That's User:Dropal below: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop being childish

Just because your article gets rejected isn't the end of the world. I reject dozens of articles an hour. Dropal 05:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Throwing a hissy fit on my talk page isn't a great way to show how mature you are. Dropal 05:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does this bother you so? Arguing on the internet is less than pointless. Dropal 06:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Ruski commie & Jewish Bolsheviks

For the record, Drop-Al's Wiki "Ex-Vadal" work:

You gave absolutely no specific reason for tagging the above first item for deletion.

Please do so immediately, or remove the tag as an error on your part. --Ludvikus 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

What does this mean?: Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism. --Ludvikus 05:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC) It means that you created a page with absolutly no merit to get attention, well, congratulations, it worked.Dropal 05:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Perhaps you are unaware of the offensiveness of calling someone childish who may be twice your age?

I notice you take pride in being a reformed Ex-Vandal.

Perhaps some education in good manners may be in order next?

Are you truly unaware of your commencing the insult?

Or is there some other reason for your misconduct which you are not MAN enough to admit? --Ludvikus 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring User:Dropal Deletion(s)

User:Dropal: "Stop being childish"

=== Stop being childish ===

Just because your article gets rejected isn't the end of the world. I reject dozens of articles an hour. Dropal 05:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Throwing a hissy fit on my talk page isn't a great way to show how mature you are. Dropal 05:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does this bother you so? Arguing on the internet is less than pointless. Dropal 06:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey, check this out.

Both of you need to calm down

Both of you need to calm down and remain WP:CIVIL please. Dropal, calling someone "childish" is inappropriate. Ludvikus, saying "are you not MAN enough to admit" is inappropriate. Both of these are personal attacks and I would ask both of you to stop before this escalates further. Thanks, Gwernol 06:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also removing the speedy deletion notice from Ruski commie since it is not pure vandalism. However I will be replacing it with a Proposed Deletion tag since it appears to be a neologism and is unsourced. Gwernol 06:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus, in response to your questions on my talk page. On the Ruski commie article, if you can provide reliable sources to show it is not a neologism and that it has reasonably widespread use, please add those to the article and remove the {{prod}} notice. You have 5 days to do this before the article will be deleted. Regarding our policy on civility, its worth pointing out that you are expected to remain civil even if someone else is incivil to you. The aim is to avoid disputes escalating into slanging matches. In other words: "its only appropriate to respond in kind!" doesn't absolve you from your responsibility not to make personal attacks.

You asked "what remedy does on have against such ABUSIVE LANGUAGE?". You can politely ask the other editor to stop making personal attacks. We have standard warning templates such as {{npa1}}, {{npa2}} etc. you can use. If you continue to suffer from personal attacks you can eventually report the user at the personal attack intervention noticeboard. I would advise against going down this road in this particular instance, since you have engaged in some incivil behaviour yourself and because it is better to descalate the situation rather than inflame it further.

Finally, you asked "Who, and Why, was My TalkPage Deleted?" As far as I can see it hasn't been, assuming you are referring to this page. Wikipedia has been experiencing some server glitches over the last hour or so, its possible you saw a brief moment of that. If you are referring to a different page or I misunderstood the question, let me know. Good luck, Gwernol 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Chalke - Sarah C. Chalke.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chalke - Sarah C. Chalke.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Postdlf 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've also disputed your claim to fair use, on the image's talk page, as your explanation neither complies with any conceivably valid legal claim to fair use, nor with our fair use policies. Postdlf 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal remarks on philosophy

I wanted to say a few things away from the main page because they don't relate directly to the discussion of philosophy. I hope they are taken in the spirit of peace.

First, my comments are not out of a desire to prove you wrong at all costs. I am not 'out to get you', nor am I one of those special people who whittle their lives away trying to intellectually dominate others over the internet. However, my comments are based on reasons -- reasons which you have, frankly, so far left either unaddressed, or seem to have misunderstood. The first case where you ignored me was when I pointed out how dialectics is a part of logic, and showed you why this seemed to be so, by invoking Aristotle's law. The second time, you mistook the critical reception to your "gave way" comment to be in reply to "assimilation". But "assimilation" cannot, as far as I can tell, be felicitously interpreted from the expression "give way"; and even if it could, that is demonstrably not the interpretation that we make. Yet you attributed the former interpretation anyway.

I can't force you to read, but I do expect it -- not just from you, but from everyone who wants to be taken seriously. This is a reminder that people from all walks of life need, including those who have tenure, who belong to MENSA, or (for that matter) work at Shopper's Drug Mart. I realize that you have good intentions, but a genuinely good will demands both good intentions and good conduct. The keystone to conducting oneself with a good will is that one must demonstrate an inclination to read for the purposes of understanding, and not just to emotionally react.

I hope these comments are helpful. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sultan Catto

The reason these categories are in red is because they do not exist. The person who added them to this article may have made a typo or may have just assumed that such a category exists. Any time there is a link in red, it means that the destination page does not exist. I don't know enough about any of these categories to take on this project, but if you do, you can do it. Either way, the article should not have red categories. When I come back to work on Wikipedia in a few days, I'll delete the red categories if they still exist. CRKingston 23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

Debuckner has been around for a long time -- years. He knows his philosophy, but his goal has always been the same, to have this article state that Philosophy is another name for Western rationalism and that nobody has been a real philosopher who is not a follower of the ancient Greeks. In particular, he dismisses Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tze, etc. But, he certainly does sound, well, rational in his most recent posts so, assume good faith.

Yes, I understand about ratio/rational/Phythgoras/the music of the spheres/etc. All that is an important part of Greek philosophy, but should have a bare mention here under History with a link to History of Philosophy which links to Greek Philosophy. It really is not part of the definition of philosophy.

My rewrite of the intro, ages ago, said that Philosophy is the study of ideas that are universal, fundamental or central to human understanding. You can imagine how quickly that got reverted.

Have you seen The Coast of Utopia. I flew to NY to see parts 1 and 2 and will be back in about a month to see part 3.

Rick Norwood 16:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your daily messages

I tried to give you suggestions I thought could be helpful. Please stop inundating my talk page with your "deep thoughts": I do not have time and frankly I am not interested. BTW, I am not a big fan of Solzhenitsyn. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

---

This is User:Humus sapiens who discribed Victor E. Marsden's work of 1922, when Marsden had already died in 1920.

He also believes he has found Nilus's 1912 Protocols, but its a 1924 imprint.

He also used a 1934 of the Protocols without realizing it, as to what Marsden said.

--Ludvikus 17:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouroborus

Well no, the new image is dragon swallowing its own tail wich is a common depiction of an Ouroboros. Jfreyre

Jewish Bolshevism

The issue is not knowledge of English. The issue is fasts and terminology. In all languages I know "forgery" is defined as an attempt to present a supposedly authentic object of some origin while in fact the object is manufactured by another origin with an intention to deceive. Now, is it true or false that the authors of the protocols attemt to present them as authentic documents of a "Jewish cabal"? `'mikka 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Protocols

Dear Ludvikus, thanks for your comments. I do try to be objective. Thank you too for the Barnstar. Paul B 20:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ludvikus, yes I do think you are very eccentric! And I think you can be rather obsessive too, in a way that alientates some other editors, but I certainly don't doubt your sincerity or genuine belief that you are improving the articles on which you work. And you have a very beautiful Veronese on your page, which works wonders for my state of mind every time I look at it! Paul B 15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis

You say to him "Unless you are versed in Western philosophy, you cannot contribute in any significant way to the English language Wikipedia." Now you really are embarrassing yourself. Mel in actual life is a distinguished philosoper at the University of Oxford. YOu really are a FUCKWIT. I had to say that. Dbuckner 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

Ludvikus, you do yourself a disservice by placing such tirades[64] on the talk pages. Try to keep to the topic. Consider what you might be willing to do in order to reach a compromise, because the Wiki works by consensus. That is the nature of the game. Banno 04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The editors you have disagreement with have been on the Wiki for a considerable length of time, and regardless of their standing in the real world have earned respect here because of the effectiveness and quality of both their editing of articles and their involvement on the Wikipedia community. Perhaps you might pause to consider why it is that you have attracted so much ire. You have been given the opportunity to compromise for the benefit of the article, and so demonstrate a vital Wiki skill. As it stands, the article will remain blocked indefinitely, which benefits no one. Banno 05:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Shrink Responds

HI Ludvikus. Thanks for your welcome. No, I haven't done any editing yet in Philosophy, I would want to consult with some professors I have access to before doing that. I might get involved in Hegel at some time in the future. I guess I accidently left out my signature on my posting: sorry, I thought I had put it in. I would be happy to engage in the dialogue, in trying to support other editors in the philosophy section, as I rely heavily on philosophy in my work. I think that I might agree with you about some of the concerns people have with psychiatry as a profession, myself. People want a lot more from us than we are generally trained to do. While we might be good at making a psychiatric diagnosis, there are a lot of pitfalls involved, and people want answers from us about how to live, and what to do in society, and such. My view is they need good training in philosophy, sociology, and other areas, besides just using the DSM IV. I will communicate with you, if you so desire, about the comments I made, and meant no disrespect. I also, was not giving a diagnosis, I was having a personal reaction, and it may have been impulsive or incorrect, so I apologize for any way it gets misconstrued. The issues in the article are very complex, and require a lot of thought and study, so I will have to gradually involve myself in the discussion, but I will make myself available to contribute as best I can. Will be able to comment more a little later. Richiar 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I had to manage my sleep-wake cycle. I will be reviewing some recent Archives of the discussion in the immediate future so I can get the gyst (sp?) of the issues; could you give me a summary of the issues as you see them from your view? It has soomething to do with rationality vs irrationality of the definition of Philosophy? Richiar 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

Thanks for your kind words, but I continue to be dismayed by the lack of progress. I ask that you focus on a spirit of compromise. It seems to me that everyone, myself included, is just repeating what has been said before. I would really like to move forward. Rick Norwood 16:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (I think). I do not view either Philosophy, or Wikipedia, as therepy. I think Wikipedia is a good thing, and I am willing to work to make it so, but not to engage in unending debate. I've worked on hundreds of articles, and if Philosophy is hopeless, I'll move on to something else. Rick Norwood 21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand. Have fun. Rick Norwood 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This user is certifiably completely normal

Just in case you missed it, I had entered a message earlier and it might get buried in the mass of information:

No, no hemlock my friend: maybe a round of drinks for all for this fine discussion ! I have done slightly more research since my posting of yesterday, and now can respond to your message here. 1) I am not formally trained in philosophy, I have my hands full as it is, but I find I cannot function very effectively in this world without some grasp of philosopy, so I try to educate myself, and this Wikipedia effort is commendable. 2) I was not making an accusation as you state above, but experssing a personal concern that came from a momentary impression just at the time when I dropped into the discussion. I wish to now say publicly that I withdraw my concern, and that I am convinced the issues being discussed are from people with sound minds. The debate is legitimate, and the discussion is legitimate. There is some emotionally charged expression which may have rendered the appearance of fanaticism, which is what may have triggered my concerns, but a little bit of communication and research has cleared this up for me. I would formally like to withdraw the concern about Bipolar Disorder. Please, everyone do continue with your work on the discussion here. Richiar 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

At the time I jumped in, Dbruckner had just made an internal link to the Elders of Zion, and I looked at that, and thought it seemed freaky; then I went to your user page, and saw all of these repetive links to Wittgenstein, and it felt like I had entered some freaky shrine, but then I noticed a connection to Andy Warhol, and perused some of the communications, and now I feel quite at home: either everyone is as sick as I am, or we're all quasi-normal. Cheers for philosophers !! I definitely think I can learn from you. Richiar 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert of external link to text of The International Jew

Hi! I fail to see how any abridgment of this foul book could be anything other than racist? Or did you mean something else by your edit comment? Thanks! --BenBurch 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I was working on the Henry Ford article when I found that page. We had an editor there claiming that this book never existed. --BenBurch 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Book design

I was in mid-reply! Edit-conflict, so I added my reply after your latest subheading. :) —Quiddity 03:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

page move

Ack! Please don't copy and paste to move pages as you did to Book structure/Book parts. It breaks the history of contributors to an article, which we need to keep intact for legal reasons. I've tagged the pages to be repaired, an admin will get around to it soon.

Please remember that Wikipedia works by building consensus, and that we don't own our contributions. Thanks. —Quiddity 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text formatting

Also, just fyi regarding talk:philosophy – the use of bold and/or all-caps really are considered to be, very literally, SHOUTING, when used in the majority of online forums/discussions. See All caps#Use on the internet. I strongly recommend not using them, unless you would be actually shouting the words whilst having the same discussion in a coffee-shop (i.e. hopefully never!)

If I might also add, please try to stick to the standard indenting methods, because constantly changing the indented depth is quite confusing, as in this thread, it's very hard to discern that all that text is from one person.

Add spaces between paragraphs instead, for contextual separation.

Thanks! and happy editing. :) —Quiddity 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to a couple questions

Hi Ludvikus. I have been busy dealing with a number of things in a linear fashion, one thing at a time. I wanted to get back to you about a couple of questions you left for me. I am just now getting around to them. The term "fuckwit"- I have never heard of that. I surmise that it is a "neologism", made up by the user himself. I surmise that it is a rearrangement of "dimwit" and "dickhead". When I joined WP about 6 weeks ago, I was doing some wandering, and I came across the following essay Wikipedia: Don't be a dick. I have some personal tendencies to try to educate people that I think don't get the picture, so I put the link on my talk page, for myself. I send this to you not as an act of trying to "correct" you, but one that I use for myself. and to answer your query about the term used upon you by another user.

About my psychological appreciation of the irrational, one of my favorite authors is Erich Fromm; I have read all his books, and I don't think anyone else does as fine a job as he in dealing with the issues of rational and irrational. His emphasis is the productive character. I will give you a couple book references in a day or two, I have to look them up. Best regards. Richiar 05:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ir/rational

Why do you say:

User:Lucaas how come you just gloss over that you and I, and User:Rick Norwood agree with you on dropping Rational from the opening?

I have always maintained to drop the word from the intro. To my ears it sounds very 18th century. --Lucas 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You say

Can you ask this other alleged pseudonymous philosopy professor to give us an exact page citation in his published body of work regarding his views on his profound discovery that "Irrationality is sterile, impotent, pointless; from irrationality comes nothing."???

I think you will find he might say something like that on that page but on his talk page and mine, you might find he recants, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mel_Etitis#Demons

He replied on my talk page, so its a quite confusing dialogue just like this one. He told me he teaches Descartes meditations in Oxford, but he didn't even see how the irrational makes its appearance there! Sometimes these guys are just paying the mortgage. --Lucas 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

It would be well to assume good faith in your dealings with other editors; specifically, by not doubting their good intentions towards the article. For example, the parenthesise around "professor" imply some deception on the part of the other editors. If you wish to make an accusation of sock puppetry, do so; don't hint at it in such an uncharitable fashion. Do this in self-defence, as it is quite possible that the dispute will escalate into an RfC on yourself or some other editor, or even to arbitration. (incidentally, I don't think that this would count as sock puppetry for the purposes of the relevant guidelines, so I wouldn't recommend making the accusation). Banno 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

From Noetica

Thanks for your note at my page, Ludvikus. It's all a bit cryptic to me, I fear. I don't want to enter into discussion with any editors much. I'll just watch, at Talk:Philosophy, and say no more for now. I appreciate the difficulties you are having, as I appreciate the difficulties others are having with the challenges you offer them. I'd like to leave it at that, now. All the best to you! – Noetica 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Obolensky

(From User talk:Petri Krohn#Ivan Obolensky)

I know absolutely nothing. Nor do I have any references. I just connected every piece of information available on the Internet and in Wikipedia. His name was already included in the template {{Governors of Grand Duchy of Finland}}. The only real source was the article fi:Ivan Obolenski on the Finnish Wikipedia - which is even shorter than this. It does not list references either. You can also thank Ghirla for bringing this to my attention. He was not sure if "Prince John Obolensky" ever even existed. -- Petri Krohn 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel

I find your comments on my talk page quite puzzling[65]. The evidence of bad faith on Mel's part is, to say the least, slim. You have no evidence that Mel is not what is claims; nor do you present any evidence in support of your claim that Mel "appears to have succeeded in giving more weight to his opinion merely because he claims to be a professor". Perversely, you claim that he exhibits bad faith in his lack of comment. The Wikipedia has benefited greatly from his support, and I will never be "embarrassed" to have awarded him a barnstar.

To quote from the guidelines:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.

I have placed the emphasis on confirmed malicious sockpuppetry. Jimbo Wales has said: "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason," and " ... multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny." This is certainly not what has occurred. If you have evidence otherwise, you should report it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Otherwise, you should refrain from what would appear to be a vindictive accusation.

I consider your comments on my talk page to be a fine example of bad faith, and should any action be pursued against you, I would feel obligated to bring this issue to attention.

Incidentally, it might be a good idea if you were to make use of the "Show Preview" button on the edit screen. Leaving a short message on someone's talk page should not involve five edits, even if it is not in your first language.

Sincerely, Banno 10:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Rverts on Philosophy page

HI Ludvikus,

please remember Banno's comment on the talk page when he unlocked the article:

So have at it. But remember a few basics of men of good will. Don't just revert. Improve what is there, rather than just deleting it. Avoid personal attacks. Be polite. And Don't be a dick. "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick yourself!"

He says do not revert. I didn't, I took the time to edit it, leaving most of what was there in place and giving some of the points made on the talk page some breathing room.

Please do not just do a wholesale revert and try to reshape the article.

--Lucas 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not the same as reverting. Reverting would have been to return it to the form it was in before that snappy change and lock took place on the 31st Dec. I left almost all the references there, I left the mention of knowledge, being and conduct (though I changed conduct to ethics), never really heard of conduct in philosophy except from a parent. I left the way the etymology was done in brackets, only removed word etymology, enought to say "from". --Lucas 13:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Ludvikus do not try and tell me what conduct means, I have been speaking the language for some time as have most of my ancestors. Conduct is a strange word on this page it is not a word that appears much in philosophy, usually we talk of ethics or morals etc.

I'm sorry but you will not convince me that "conduct" is a technical term of philosphy. The most general term is to be used in the intro and though you make many references, unlike me, you don't seem to have read much philosophy. I cannot ever remember seeing a book on philosophy called "such and such conduct etc." Almost always if they wish to use a general word they say ethics, or morals. Both of which have a long history. Conduct is just plain odd. Just try search a philosophy bibliography for "conduct", zero! And Ethics, well countless.

As to reverting, you did not read my post, I left all the references, changed a couple of words I did not revert.

--Lucas 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel

Your comments at [66] are entirely inappropriate. Despite my warning[67] you persist in mounting personnel attacks against Mel. I am letting you know that any further personal attacks may result in your being banned. I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, especially:

A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. Examples include (but are not limited to):

* Personal attacks which place users in danger (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks) * Persistent personal attacks * Posting personal details * Persistent copyright infringement

Please note my emphasis. Banno 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing other editors' user pages

Plase don't do it. Talk pages are for messages, not User pages. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor policy

Please see my notice on the Philosophy talk page about user blocks and deletion of disruptive comments from Talk page. Dbuckner 10:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More on Mel

I am sorry that you feel I am not being even-handed. If you are unsatisfied with anything I have said or done, you are welcome to make use of the dispute resolutionprocess or to raise the topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Mel is an administrator with several years experience on the Wiki, and doubtless has an excellent grasp of the way in which the Wikipedia works. You are a relative newcomer. I consider it one of my duties as an admin to ensure that you are aware of the processes at work in the Wikipedia. Hence my warning that persistent personal attacks may result in your being blocked.

As for your claim that he called you a shit, I think he was referring to the quality of your writing rather than to your person. In either case, yes, it was inappropriately phrased, and I am sure Mel is aware of the possible consequences. The one comment does not amount to a persistent personal attack.

On the other hand, I have provided links in my other posts on your talk page to your innuendo regarding Mel's status at Oxford, his gender and his use of sockpuppetry. I've also noted your more recent comment[68] . You seem infatuated with Mel to an extent far in excess of his influence on the philosophy page. Mel's occupation and gender are irrelevant to his role on the Wiki. Further discussion of them would amount to harassment. I strongly recommend that you desist.

I should also thank Mel for removing the comment you left on my User page, no doubt by accident.[69],

It is worth pointing out that Mel does not claim to be a Professor at Oxford. A knowledgeable fellow such as yourself will be aware that the term has a quite different meaning outside the United States.

As for the Star of Sophia, it is an unusual barnstar in that it is awarded by a vote, not by an individual. I voted in his favour because of the excellent and ubiquitous work he has done for philosophy on the Wiki. I gave the award belatedly, as a member of the Philosophy Wikiproject. I do not appreciate him because I gave him the barnstar, but rather I gave him the barnstar because I appreciate him. You have the situation arse-about.

Finally, I am glad that you have learned to use the "Show Preview" button, but regret your finding the "*". Sentences are preferable to dot-points, don't you think?

Sincerely, Banno 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You greatly underestimate both Mel's contribution to the article and my own understanding of its history. Mel has been working on it since at least April 2005[70]. My own contributions precede his [71], although I have not made a significant edit in several months. Nor do you show much of an understanding of the Wiki by describing it as a "direct democracy" or an "anarchy". It is neither; it is an encyclopaedia. Thank you for your advice; I will continue to be biased in favour of those who have a demonstrated capacity to support the Wikipedia. I assure you that I have no intention of intimidating you; but rather to show you how the Wiki functions. As for your insistence that you are "not that ego involved here", perhaps you protest too much. Banno 22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical notes

Hi,

you made a number of interesting additions to the schism section of philosophy page. I have moved these to its own subsection, called "Some Historical notes on the Analytic side of the Schism". The reason being that well they give details of the politics in the US and details of British formation of Analytic but none on France/Germany.

Now in philosophy this division goes back to Moore and also to Frege and Husserl at the turn of the century before all that politics you mention in the 1940s and 50s. So though McCarthyism etc is all very interesting from a TV point of view, and he may have banned books etc. it only happened quite a while after the division had begun forming. Remember the fear of Marxism was palpable in Europe ever since Marx himself roamed the cities. The split i think was real when both sides turned away from Hegel (ie, with Husserl and Moore/Russell). It was cemented by 1929 and the dissident move away from Husserl, it really just played itself out then in subsequent decades.

No doubt you are right in a way since the Red scare may have given the more apolitical Analytic an opportunists chance to "take-over" as Rorty says in the 40s and 50s at most philosophy departments the the US and UK.

Perhaps some of the stuff on the formation of Analytic you could add to the "history" sectio of the Analytic page.

With the schism the hard part is finding details of the breaks that occurred, for example, a book review of one side by the other, a tv show with both sides etc., are primary facts that show the division.

--Lucas 11:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Multifarious comments

Hi,

do you notice any difference in the way you comment on talk pages to other people? Most people write a comment in a paragraph or two and only rarely make new subsections. You keep adding various comments at various indentations sometimes in multiple subsection., with lots of distracting double bracket references.

Often you also add s number of signed comments instead of just making it a number of similarly indented paragraphs and signing it once at the end.

Now I'm not asking for everyone to be the same but it is hard for the rest of us to read. I think if you made more subtle comments others might have less work to do in sorting out what you are trying to say. --Lucas 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Schism

Why do you think the word, "schism" is ahistorical? The other word "diverge" is that more historical, or "gulf"? I think it is the most appropriate word because of its history. --Lucas 19:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You think Schism is too strong, it is strong because it is Greek? It is strong because the divide is strong. Philosophy was more or less one, then it splits, a schism! The same happened in the Church because they like Philosophy often use Greek words you choice of the Latin word is inappropriate since Roman philosophy is not used much these days. I provided a reference for this use of the word, did you not se it. --Lucas 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop writing rubbish on the Philosophy page

Stop now. I am reverting anything whatever that you do here. Dbuckner 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And please stop discussing my corrections to the rubbish on my Talk page

The right place is the Talk page for the philosophy article, where any interested editor can read my critique of your work. If I am wrong about anything, please point it out there. I am not going to debate content on User Talk Pages. I am sending same message to Lucas for same reason. KD Tries Again 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Shortening the analytic/continental divide

I'm sorry our edits crossed over, meaning that I removed a lot of your text just after you'ld added it. However, I do think we should try and be concise, and that my version included the key points from what you had added. Over and above that, what I was trying to do with my version was make the section more coherent and easier for the reader to follow, explaining first the history and then moving onto the matter of the division between analytic and continental philosophy, rather than simply listing differences with little or no structure. So, if you do want to add some of the detail from your version back in (and I'd encourage you to think whether it's really necessary before you do so), please try and integrate it with what I've written, rather than reverting wholesale. VoluntarySlave 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I have noted Dbuckers abusive language, I suspect he may have been drinking. Anyhow, I need another editor to make a n Rfc. Also he seems to be removing work from the philosophy page with constant reverts and stalking editors, he seems to have no contribution to make apart from removing stuff from sections that other editors are working on, notice how he just so happens to now be editing the same section as myself. --Lucas 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In which messages do you think he impersonates me ? --Lucas 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You both may want to check out (the humorous) m:MPOV before you start taking this all too seriously... RfCs are kinda depressing, and best avoided if at all possible. Remember that The world will not end tomorrow!

You may also get some enjoyment and insight from reading through m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, to better know thy cohorts and territory. Thanks. --Quiddity 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)