User talk:Peter Damian (original account)

On holiday again

On holiday again!

Thanks for the generous words. Perhaps things will improve. Mtevfrog 07:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt it. Dbuckner 07:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward

Sorry bout that. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 21:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

editing

This is rich.

271828182 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Heidegger and the analytics

I share your sense that the "schism" was not a big deal in the middle of the last century. I think it's been much more vivid in peoples' minds over the last three decades or so, when - ironically - increased communication and availability of work in translation made it ever more clear that there are whole areas of philosophy not to taught by British and American departments. I guess that at first it was 'just existentialism' which could be ignored - but then there was structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstruction, and so on.

Ryle does seem to have been a lonely aficionado of phenomenology in the 1920s - I think Dummett says as much in his Origins of Analytic Philosophy book. In the States, there was a journal called Phenomenology and Philosophical Research, which I associate with Marvin Farber; so there was always an undercurrent of interest here.

Carnap and Wittgenstein were both familiar with Heidegger: Carnap took the trouble to publish a paper attacking him in 1931. Heidegger was pretty famous in Germany before the war. Big but easily overlooked point: you had to read Heidegger in German. Yes, whatever Heidegger thought about metaphysics, he was viewed by the positivists as a prime exponent of metaphysical garbage.

Was there a German reaction against metaphysics in the '20s? Why should it have only been Austrian? Not sure. I guess Kant was still dominant. KD Tries Again 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)KD

Appearance does not show itself. I am not sure the disease example is so great, but his purpose here is to set himself apart from Husserl. In Husserlian phenomenology, the subject matter is the phenomena which aredirectly presented to intuition (consciousness, if you like). What Husserl overlooks is the phenomenon of something being presented: and Heidegger is really convincing on this, not in B&T, but in the lecture courses from the same period where he really has space to spell it out. If Husserl looked a bit closer at this phenomenon of presentation (or appearance), he would - according to Heidegger - have stumbled across "the world" - in other words, the lived environment in which, for anything to appear, Dasein and 'things' must be present to each other. It wasn't until I read the various lecture courses, which have slowly been appearing in English, that I realised what a condensation of his views B&T is. KD Tries Again 16:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)KD

Why not open a subpage?

Why don't you consider opening a subpage on philosophy (and B&T) so you and KD and Mel, and MtefFrog can do your own work undisturbed? Then let the two L's do what they want (for the time being) on the main page. There would be a need to decide on the proper version in time, but, that couldn't be worse than the way things are currently. Richiar 15:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Or open your own subpage/workshop? I'm doing it. Richiar 16:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Another User has done just that. KD Tries Again 16:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)KD

Recent goings-on involving one of your special friends over at the talk page for Being and Time may be of interest to you. Or possibly just dreary. Mtevfrog 07:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've vowed not to re-enter (again) the page so long as the winds continue to prevail, but the answer to your question is: they should be dumped for the content, or rather lack of it. The themes are of interest. The real point of my post there was to say that the response to the bad situation ought not to have been, "let's make a process whereby we skirt around the problem and pretend that we're going to all come together and edit one word at a time." What is required is the agreement by all non-utterly-painful editors to collectively create the conditions whereby the editors who might actually write something are able to contribute. The editors hovering about the article do not appear to have grasped this difference, or else are unable to put it into practice. Just summarising for you—I know it's not your area of particular interest. I more thought you may be interested in the interference with my talk-page edits, and the 3 reverts. Mtevfrog 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you all need me (my editing credentials in several areas should be well-established by now on the Wackipedia at least, though it does me absolutely no good in real life!!), just click my talk page. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Mtevfrog. I have already reported Ludvikus for today's behavior on the philosophy Talk page. In a sense, I am not so worried about him, because it won't be long before he insults someone with the power to ban him. Lucas is much more difficult problem, and harder to edit around. KD Tries Again 18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)KD

Ludvikus is more obviously a problem, but Lucas isn't so far behind (he has more self-control, and lacks the urge to flail around in such a demented way, but his editing pattern is as bad if not worse). It's a pain, but I don't think that it can be very long before they're both dealt with in a more long-term fashion. If anyone starts up an RfC I'll certainly contribute, but I just don't have enough time at the moment. An RfC is only a first step, of course, but it's usually an important one. (Ludvikus will probably earn a lengthy block soon even without an RfC, but Lucas is another kettle of fish.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus again

I have been watching his edits since his block lifted. Most of them have been annoying, but his latest here is an outright personal attack. I have given him a final warning. If he continues in this vein I will block him indefinitely. Gwernol 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Blackburn/Russell

Of course the whole thing is a matter of craftsmanship and being economical. (My prose is somewhat crap. Can you believe I once wanted to be a writer? Zut alors.) Anyway my preference is to have Blackburn front-and-center so that we're being faithful to his minority report.

The Russell quote from Pi wasn't my doing, though it's quite interesting of course. The one I had in mind just recently was a quote from "Wisdom of the West" p.7 (I suppose it isn't easy to track these things down. The talk page dialogues rush by like river rapids.) "We may note one peculiar feature of philosophy. If someone ask (sic) the question what is mathematics, we can give him a dictionary definition, let us say the science of number, for the sake of argument. As far as it goes this is an uncontroversial statement... Definitions may be given in this way of any field where a body of definite knowledge exists. But philosophy cannot be so defined. Any definition is controversial and already embodies a philosophic attitude. The only way to find out what philosophy is, is to do philosophy."

I might have to take some time off Wikipedia talk page discussions. I'm feeling a bit nihilistic right now and it's going to corrode my judgment. Anyway I hope the above helps. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

denying the antecedent

The outside/inside example is technically correct, but I agree that it isn't as clear as it should be. (I just took the example I already cooked up for aff. the con.) I'll try to come up with a better example. 271828182 12:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had a cup of coffee and I came up with a better example. 271828182 15:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Talk:Physics/wip

Hi Dbuckner. You wrote at my page, responding to my recent comment at Talk:Philosophy:

Have I missed something? I skimmed through the discusion at physics/wip when you originally mentioned it ages ago. I didn't see anything that was so horrifying on the face of it. On the other hand, these things don't always appear at face value to an outsider.

My answer:

But did you look through the archives? They're a bit hard to find in the usual way, since the page is structured irregularly, and has several odd offshoots not documented below (and scarcely anywhere else). The five main locations are as follows:

Talk:Physics/wip

Talk:Physics/wip/Archive1

Talk:Physics/wip/Archive2

Talk:Physics/wip/Archive,forDefinition

Talk:Physics/wip/Archive,forDefinition2

Talk:Physics/wip/leadvote

No, it wasn't as rancorous as Talk:Philosophy has got, but it was maddening in a more genteel way; and therefore in a sense more excruciating. Most of the discussion, at all of the locations, concerned either the content and wording of the lead, or the correct procedure for negotiating about the lead.

I left there some time ago. But recently I went back and suggested that, if they wanted a moderator (and they really do need one!), a philosopher would be their only hope. Preferably someone competent in philosophy of science. Just one newcomer did so much as respond to this thought. The process grinds glacially on, like the Chancery proceedings in Bleak House. In sum, it's just one of those areas, like Philosophy, in which nothing stable can be achieved in Wikipedia. Lord have mercy on us all! –Noetica 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi There!!

Hi! I'm glacious and i work mostly on an another wiki. i need a little bit of help. i was looking for online members when i saw you in the recent changes. I would like to ask you whether you can help me on a few html codes. Please reply to me on my English talk page, soon!! Thanks!! --Glacious 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Analytic section of Philosophy page

Just noticed it. Has it been there a while? From the term "Ango- nations" [sic], I suspect Lucas's handiwork. He (or she) has effectively locked down a whole series of philosophy pages right now.KD Tries Again 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)KD

Thanks, but no thanks

First, my work is not "original" - it's just informed.

Second, there's no way you'll get me to touch the Philosophy Page at this time.

The right thing for you to do, in my opinion, is to edit the page by dropping "rational" as a characterization of philosophy all over the world & in the 21st century. You, and your 27 or so Wikipedia collegues are too amibitious, and not sufficiently modest, in your sweeping efforts at explaining what philosophy is.

You said you admired 2 qualities in a person: (1) persistence, and (2) good arguments. I think you have to qualify the second: there's no way you'll acknowledge, or even recognize, the second, in a person, when you dispise that person - you dispise me. So there is no way that I could possibly prevail in any "rational enquiry" regarding what philosophy actually is. You have far too much at stake in winning against me. And this prevents you from understanding that I'm correct. That's human nature, generally. Bertrand Russell was different. As for me, nothing would please me more than to see you prove me wrong on this one hypothesis: that you are capable of conceding the point (on "rationality") to me. Russell, in the first volume of his autobiography, maintained - in a letter to his beloved Alys, his 1st wife - that he was more interested in the truth than in winning an argument - a virtue I believe I do possess. I would hope that of you - and I do acknowledge you passion for philosophy - also possess this virtue, as distasteful as my experience with you has been. --Ludvikus 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding you're sarcasm: on my "important" and "original work". That I comprehend. But what is your strategy? How is my "work" any more important than yours?

You've described my prior remarks as "nonsense" - or do you think the Continentals are full of philosophical meaninglessness?

Or do you simply hope to see me "banned" again? What's your purpose now, Db? --Ludvikus 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium

I'll check it out. I need to reflect on my motivation. I didn't suddenly get an urge to put good philosophy on the internet: I simply had become aware that Wikipedia is frequently the top search result for all kinds of enquiries, and equally that the Wikipedia articles on some things I cared about needed improvement.

So I went to the Heidegger page, Lucas directed to me to the long-deleted "schism" page, and the rest is history. Currently, several pages which interest me are locked down by trolls (and I am really surprised you are expected to tolerate being hounded here by an editor on his final warning), and there's not much to be done about that without community support.KD Tries Again 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)KD

If you go there, please say hello for me to that master crank of all cranks who seems to run the philosophy section over there: User:Jon Awbrey. 0: --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No one at CZ has the last name of Awbrey. Dbuckner, I hope you join the wiki. C.m.jones 08:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Email

Shame you don't have a valid email attached to your page. Banno 10:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

Hi. Regarding the "evidence" link you posted on my talk page. What would you like me to do with it? I am having a fairly relaxed conversation with a fellow editor - neither backing or condoning any of his views in any way shape or form, nor wishing to know any of them (that's why I don't go to the philosophy page) - nor pillorying him. During our conversations, I would hope to influence him in his attitudes, for the better, rather than me simply castigating him. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 16:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

Count on it. Richiar 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to try to make the Philosophy page better (or at least, to make it capable of being made better). I'm losing the will to fight, but if we all lose that will, the first philosophy page that comes up in Google will be filled with rambling nonsense. JJL 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia failing page

Thanks. I think what is needed is a more comprehensive study on the state of wikipedia article quality, vandalism, etc. My gut feeling is that a multi-level trust model is the best way forward, but exactly how to structure it would need a lot of thought and discussion. I notice a few people on that page suggesting similar concepts; maybe it's worth setting up a Wikiproject to do a more detailed study and put a proposal together? (Caniago 10:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Hi. I responded to you there, but I wanted to ask if it is really true that there are only two editors working to keep Philosophy from degrading. If it is, then I'd further suggest that it is more important to cultivate more editors willing to do it than it is to work on the article. A less embarassing article over the next week is less important than creating and maintaining an editor pool that has enough people with a rough consensus to keep the article relatively stable over the long term without anyone feeling like it is up to them alone, and burning out. Jkelly 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(I'm adopting the convention that the thread stays on the page it started). Well sure, that's all I spend my time doing. Checking out quality edits, being nice and friendly, getting help wherever I can. I managed to 'recruit' no fewer than 6 in December. But they all got driven away by User:Ludvikus (+ 1 other troll, not quite so bad). I'll get you a list. And check out the edit history of the guy. He is completely insane. Anyway, I shouldn't have to be recruiting people to work in such conditions. Any employer would have been sued big time for having to work in such conditions. Why can't the guy just be blocked? He has been twice already. Dbuckner 19:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As you're aware, there's no easy solution. Wikipedia, by policy, is more or less completely agnostic about the quality of editing, excepting only obvious vandalism. There's always going to be a Ludvikus; some of them will be easier to deal with, some of them may even be worse. I'll note that I've seen more of this kind of behaviour on policy pages than I have in articles. Policy pages tend to get watched by a huge number of people, and there's a much greater willingness to just ignore the talkpage rambling, and revert any attempts to actually change the policy. Without any engagement, they eventually do go away. If User:Banno's block sticks, you'll have relief from this particular person, but that article is going to attract more. I'll watchlist it; I think that what you need there is not necessarily more editors, but more people willing to make snap judgements about what is an improvement and what isn't it, while not getting stuck in the tarpit. Jkelly 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I see he's been blocked. Thank God for that. Only because I pleaded to Banno. Still. He was absolutely the worst, we can deal with pretty much anything else. Dbuckner 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus

While your pleading had some influence on my decision to ban him, his starting to edit rubbish into the main article at Philosophy was my main reason. Rubbish on talk pages can be ignored; but not in articles.

I must say that this whole episode has been handled very poorly, from the beginning. As soon as his disruptive editing became apparent, an RfC should have been launched against him. This is not the job of the administrators, but of the editors who found his work problematic. There is no point in railing against Wiki policy if it is not followed. While the admins, including myself, have been remiss in allowing this to continue as long as it has, we have not been helped by the attitude adopted by other editors.

I hope this is an end to his editing, but it is entirely possible that my block will be lifted by another admin, or that the issue will proceed to arbitration. Without the RfC, the information on which I based my decision to block him will only be apparent to someone who has the fortitude to go over the talk pages of the many articles and users who have been involved. Any admin who gives this issue a quick once-over may well decide that this is a case of bastardisation. I am convinced that it isn't, and that banning Ludvikus was the only sensible thing to do.

I hope that, when this sort of issue arises again, the editors of the relevant pages , including your good self, will follow Wiki procedures. Banno 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vacation time

Time to go on vaction for a few days. I'll check back next week. Richiar 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed

Sorry I haven't been around as much but real life (end of one semester, beginning of another) is cutting back on the free time. I am still planning to substantively edit the Continental Philosophy article. I have appropriate secondary sources on the desk; it's just a matter of finding the time to bang out something readable on the keyboard. Thanks for all the support and help; bouncing Ludvikus was a big step forward (though it is appalling that it took so long, of course). cheers, 271828182 20:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

RfCs and other junk

Thanks for your comments. I quite sympathise with you; although the procedure for dealing with problems is clearly set out, and has apparently worked in this case, it most certainly could have been done much more rapidly.

The process is set out at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The vast majority of disputes on the Wiki are minor, as a quick look around Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts will show. But the nature of the medium is such that they quickly escalate to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, which put considerably more strain on all involved. Hence the process is written so as to encourage low-level resolution of issues, so that admins don't spend all their time looking at evidence.

There is also a culture of goodwill towards editors, meaning in this case that admins and editors actively engage in education new editors into the culture of Wikipedia. This support is one of the reasons for Wiki's growth; but as you have noticed, it can also result in mollycoddling trolls.

After the first few personal attacks and disruptive edits, the editors restricted themselves to pointing out the problem to the offender on his talk page and discussing it on the article's talk page. instead, the formal processes should have been followed. For example, a request could have been made at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts; or a Wikipedia:Requests for comment on the content dispute could also have been filed. This is not the same as a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, which is more serious. There are other options, including various types of mediation, that might have been attempted.

This could have been done in the first day or so. The next step might then be, once several editors agree that the offender's work is disruptive, to launch a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. This process allows for the collection of data on misbehaviour, and widens the discussion to include all editors and edits. This could certainly have been done by the end of the first week.

The RfC gives admins an overview of the issue, allows the offender to defend themselves, and lays the groundwork for further action. Note that an administrator who commences or participates in an RfC would not then be able to implement blocks or bans.

The next step, if the recalcitrance continued, would be either a community ban, or a request for arbitration.

In the case of Ludvikus, this process was not followed. The result was that there was no single location to which an admin could be referred in order to see what was occurring. Indeed, in this case the evidence was scattered over a range of articles and talk pages, and took literally hours to read. Having followed the discussion for a few days, I was convinced that there was sufficient cause for a community ban; but a community ban requires a consensus among admins, and I was unable to achieve this. If I had had an RfC and other evidence, that might have been an end to it. I simply did not have the spare time to pull together all the evidence. As it was, other admins became involved, seeking to solve the issue using mediation and so on. These attempts were of course made with the best of intentions; and in most cases they would have been sufficient to resolve the dispute; but in this case the effect was simple to provide a forum for the troll.

As an admin, if I had edited the article, or commenced an RfC, I would have been obliged to recuse myself from taking action. Hence I was left with little choice but to allow the mediation process to proceed.

Perhaps I should have banned Ludvikus much earlier and then sought approval from other admins. But I think this would have resulted in the ban being lifted, and probably arbitration - a longer process than a community ban.

In any case, since two other admins have supported the ban I have placed on him, it should hold.

Anyway, hope this short essay helps to explain my gruff post of yesterday. Please be aware that this whole process must be the exception, not the rule. For better or worse, we are stuck with the prevailing culture of Wikipedia, and must work within it. For my part, I hope that a more proactive approach on the part of the admins involved in the philosophy section might lead to some improvement in what are a set of very poor articles. But that will only work if the formal processes are applied. Banno 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:DSCIMoore.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:DSCIMoore.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. 13:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Something for your 'philosophy laughing stock' page

Übermensch. Mein Gott.

Ontology's quite cute, too: 'Why is an onject in existance aposed to being in nothing?'. It seems to be written in its own special dialect, which could be such a lovely idea, although a bit hackneyed and cliched on Wikipedia, to tell the truth. I would have fixed this little bit myself, only I am not sure what the person was actually trying to say, and strange though it sounds, it may be the case that having obvious nonsense in an article will alert readers to the probable presence of subtle nonsense as well, and cause them to disregard the 'information' contained therein altogether.

A bit of an ethical dilemma, to be sure — on the one hand, it is surely right to remove vandalism, or fix spelling errors, on sight. On the other, one has an ethical duty to the community, I believe, to prevent people from being misled by nonsense. If writing an entire encyclopaedia article on ontology is too much work for someone (a non-expert, at that) at a given point in time, but the existing encyclopaedia article is such garbage that it is actively harmful to the knowledge-corpus of the world (how many people look up 'ontology' on Wikipedia as a first point of reference, every day?), then what does one do?

I haven't been around in a while — so I'm not sure what is happening with the RfC. If I encounter any strangeness on the part of the 'L-----s' editors, I will be sure to post diffs on your special page, if that's still relevant. Rosenkreuz 16:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Test message

edward (buckner) 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

I'm glad you also see the need for it. I'm too much of a coward to drop it into an article, though, lest the hordes descend upon me as a troll and a vandal.

I took a look at the medieval philosophy article, and was struck, particularly, by the tone in the 'character' section; in what is unfortunately a rare occurrence among Wikipedia articles, it manages to have exactly the tone an encyclopaedia article should have: accurate, concise and authoritative. 'This is the confirmed knowledge we have of this subject', not 'according to some, x (cite blog), but others say y (cite web-forum), and my neighbour's teacher claims the converse; hoewver x can reply to y by saying...'.

I was thinking about the next two sections you have 'open' there (early, high middle ages). Do you think it's appropriate to start with St. Augustine, or Boethius rather? Or would it be better to rather just characterise the 'overall flavour' of the patristics, then the likes of Scotus Eriugena, etc., moving on to the schoolmen proper? One of the problems, I think, with the multiple-authorship model of Wikipedia is that if every well-meaning person adds what they know about the subject of the article, one ends up with a behemoth which is full of facts but has no flow or cohesion: just look at quantum logic for a perfect example; mostly accurate contentwise, to be sure, but one could read the article and still come away without knowing precisely what quantum logic is, or why people spend their lives writing about it! There needs to be an overall vision, a plan for what the final article will look like, I think.

I happened upon a delightful quote from Umberto Eco just now: 'After all, the cultivated person's first duty is to be always prepared to rewrite the encyclopaedia.' I think I'll put that on my userpage. Rosenkreuz 12:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Keeping sewage out of the wine

I'm sure you'll enjoy this: Keeping sewage out of the wine. (Caniago 15:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Length of philosophy article

Is it too defeatist to suggest the whole thing should just be a re-direct to the philosophy portal?KD Tries Again 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)KD

Send

Hello Dr. Buckner. Kindly send me an email. There are a few things I'd like to talk with you about off wiki. Regards, C.m.jones 08:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hegel, idealism

I figured it wasn't your handiwork. That was the first time I'd bothered to read that far into this article. I am now putting words down for an entirely new intro to the Continental philosophy article, along the lines of the current Analytic article. 271828182 11:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone rewrote Continental Philosophy

Just went back and took a look for the first time in a while. Improved beyond recognition (and all without any fuss on the Talk Page). It may not be perfect, but I'd say it's largely accurate. Wow.KD Tries Again 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)KD

The Troll of all Trolls

Indeed. Sometimes we have to remind ourselves that hiding within every troll there is a poet just waiting to break free. And within that poet is another troll. Infinite regress, &c. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WorldTraveller

I agree. Another editor better suited to Citizendium, perhaps? How long before I just give up here and move there I don't know. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It will soon [1] be worthwhile hiring a charabanc to take us all. Now for heaven's sake will somebody overturn this ridiculous block ASAP. Giano 22:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

If you engage in personal attacks as you did here[2], you will be blocked. If you cannot make an argument without insults, stop and rethink your argument. Please read WP:NPA and follow it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the same word (f____wits, I presume) back at the person who mentioned it seems more like a rhetorical device than a personal attack. I take the content of that somment to be "Well perhaps the person who said that was correct"--an indirect insult, rather than a direct attack. JJL 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"By contrast, the one called Inshane specialises in inane puerile drivel". You made a personal attack this morning[3], I warned you about personal attacks[4], you made another personal attack[5], then I had to warn you again[6], now you have made yet another personal attack[7], and I have blocked you for it[8] for 24 hours. Please do not engage in personal attacks once this block has expired. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Children of the Sun (game) is inane, puerile, and it is drivel. This is a comment on the poor quality of an article. Can I not comment on the quality of articles now and then? That's what I do. edward (buckner) 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Inane - vacant or empty. Puerile - engaged in by young boys or teenagers. My son likes these game thingies, but then he is only 11. Drivel - foolish or childlike. See 'puerile'. edward (buckner) 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

You did not say the article was poor quality, or even that the article was inane, puerile, and it is drivel. What you said was that "the one called Inshane[the person] specialises in inane puerile drivel". It is a personal attack. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I said exactly that. "the one called Inshane specialises in inane puerile drivel of this sort". If you had followed the link, you see it goes straight to the article in question. It was a comment on the quality of what he contributes (i.e. an article on a puerile subject which is moreover a stub). WP:NPA talks about insulting or disparaging editors. Not their work. If we are not allowed to criticise the quality of what goes in here, something has gone badly wrong. edward (buckner) 19:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy says: "when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy.". Thus, if I say an article is puerile drivel, that is not a personal attack. edward (buckner) 19:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

But your said "This person is X because Y", not "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", do you see the difference? One is talking about the person in a disparaging way, the other is not. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave that for now, thanks. Did you get my email? Thanks. edward (buckner) 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I got yer email, no problem. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks edward (buckner) 22:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm confused. Since when is calling someone pompous a personal attack? MetsFan76 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok metsfan, I will spell it out. From WP:NPA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Pompous is insulting, it was directed against a person, any questions? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, don't talk to me like I'm a child. Second, "pompous" was the word Dbuckner used to describe your attitude. That was his personal opinion of you and you should accept constructive criticism. Third, your response to me and your behavior today forces me to agree with him. MetsFan76 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your attitude was pompous. Sorry. edward (buckner) 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to attack a person, simply deal with the argument. If I sound pompous is it most likely because typing does not convey tone. If something is not obvious to you, then I have to spell it out, if you are offended by that fine, but don't call me names. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, HighinBC, I have no beef with you, but I do think you were a little too trigger happy with the blocks today. You say to deal with the argument, but how can there be a debate if you go and block the other person? Talk it out first. MetsFan76 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am never happy about a block, and I don't think of it as a trigger. I would treat the same behavior the same any day, I am a very relaxed guy. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope one day people will see that side of you. MetsFan76 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted to ANI for discussion. Newyorkbrad 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I suggest you advise your son to buy the Planescape campaign setting, at least then he'll learn some vulgarized mythology. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked you per the ANI discussion.[9] Bishonen | talk 07:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Edward. Just wanted to say thanks for all your support over this, and very sorry you ended up getting blocked as well. 81.179.115.188 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted my edits on Philosophy

Hi, I see you reverted my edits to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&diff=113327305&oldid=113300971

You did this without even providing an edit summary saying why. I should like to know why you thought my contribution was that bad. I was just clarifying more exactly what philosophy was.

Please reply on my talk page. --Alfakim-- talk 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's probably because they are BS. HAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!! Hm....I don't know why I've always been able to get away with sort of thing. Never been blocked once and I have insulted almost everyone!! It's probably because I insult myself much more often and harshly than others.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So that's how it feels

Someone blundered around the Existentialism section and left it a mess. At this point, one thinks "Why bother?", right? KD Tries Again 15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)KD

Tried to fix it up a bit. These days, I am mainly making minor corrections to articles about punk rock. More restful.KD Tries Again 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)KD

You're right

I stand corrected. I was too hasty in my reviewing the definition section. On close inspection there seems to be no or minor difference between that and the current version. I tried to trace the roots of the section: the structural history of the article in Dec and Jan is so convoluted I had to quit, but it seems Ludvikus started "Definitions of Philosophy" at 02:34 on 17 Jan; it changed to "Identity of Philosophy" at 04:16 1 Feb by Lucidish; Then R. Norwood changed back to "Definitions of Philosophy" at 13:40 on 1 Mar. I grant you Godspeed on a slash and burn mission. Richiar 01:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Back again

New job, less time, but interested again in tackling the needed changes to the logic article.

Anything interesting happen in the last year or so? --- Charles Stewart(talk) 13:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll make a start, hopefully tomorrow. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 13:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Betterto say late than never: I have a big job at the moemtn, and I doubt I will have time to work on the draft until late next week. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Replying to a note from you on my page

Yes, I am "the" Barbara Partee (Barbara Hall until 1966). Thanks for the kind words! That was my first-ever Wikipedia edit, but I don't intend for it to be the last. I'm a novice at this, and I don't even know if this is the proper way to reply. Best --bpartee 02:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Medieval philosophy

I was poking around in the medieval philosophy section, and found it to have some quite interesting topics that it had engaged in. I think I recall you once saying you had some expertise in that area? Is there any possibility of expanding on that section? Richiar 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the article that you linked to on my discussion page. It starts out, then stops. I started reviewing medieval philosophy and found it quite engaging. I started looking at the SEP, and I see where you might have felt overwhelmed: its a massive field, it seems. Maybe its just too large a subject to put on WikiP, but it might help, for instance, to add some of what the Medievals say about predicates and categories, and such. I could just start adding what I read from SEP, but somehow that just doesn't seem right. Richiar 02:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vox Angelica.jpg

Hello Dbuckner, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Vox Angelica.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Dbuckner/Philosophylaughingstock. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

reform

Wondered if you had seenWikipedia:Reform. Banno 06:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take a look. edward (buckner) 10:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

On "The Jew of Linz"

Not sure if this is the correct way to communicate with you, but this is just a brief note in response to your very kind words about the book. I'm contactable at kimberley.cornish AT arts.monash.edu.au210.49.121.35 07:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to leave email addresses on the net. And remember to sign in or you get the URL as above. Thanks for the address, anyhow. Best wishes. edward (buckner) 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Professor

I am editor LoveMonkey and it appears that my most beloved (and yet quite cruel) Mr Zeusnoos has left and will not return to Wikipedia. Since Mr Demiurge has flown the coop I have become quite lonely and basically left to my own devices (which are not machinations I tell you). I was hoping to work on something. I was hoping to get help from Mr Thunderbolt brain but well I've covered that already. So I would like to ask your assistance. I have tried (though I consider my contribution poor) to work on and bring up the Nous article. I would like to it to be brought up to par so that it could tie to the demiurge article and the noetic article. LoveMonkey 22:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
PS the Theogony has also been corrupted. LoveMonkey 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)== Existence ==

Existence

RE comment on my talk page Please leave this article alone if you don't know how to improve it. I can show in detail why the edits you made over the last few days are weak and poorly written. Otherwise, please leave it alone. edward (buckner) 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I just began this cleanup process an hour or so ago, and hadn't finished, nor finished rounding up citations. Secondly, I find the attitude here and in Dbuckner's edit summary to be quite unwelcome, and his marching orders quite unenforceable, at least in the end. Thirdly, this is an article that's been a complete conceptual mess for some time now and in dire need of help. I wonder what is the great attachment to the utter mess that constitutes the article lead at present. Not even a mention of ontology, but it's merely an epistemological problem? as expressed in the introduction of the article as "that existence is what is asserted by statements of first-order logic of the form "for some x Fx". This agrees with the simple and commonsensical view that, in uttering "There is a bridge across the Thames at Hammersmith", or "A bridge crosses the Thames at Hammersmith", one asserts the existence of a bridge across the Thames at Hammersmith. The word "existence", in this view, is a simple way of describing the logical form of an ordinary "subject-predicate" sentence." I could easily imagine I'm dealing with a pompous arse from the analytic school who hasn't the foggiest idea how to write an encyclopedia article or work cooperatively, but that would be speculation so I won't assert such a thing. Have a nice day. I'll deal with this later. ... Kenosis 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Template:LogicInv Gregbard 03:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Star of Sophia

The Star of Sophia Barnstar is awarded to Dbuckner for doing the hard part of wikiphilosophy, writing from scratch.
Banno 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Banno 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Existence help

This is an appealing topic for me: I'd be happy to help, but will have to proceed carefully, and would seek to know what directions you are interested in going with it. I'll do what I can. Richiar 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well.....there goes the neighborhood. Richiar 15:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Aristotle

Hi! I've moved your comment to the article talk page, just in case anyone else has a contribution to make. But my real hope is that you will find my points there convincing, or at least help point the way to something we can both feel good about. (I am certainly not averse to mentioning Catholic theology! I just want it mentioned via blue links to articles where readers will learn more about Catholic Aristotelianism, and, more importantly, in the company of links to the development of Aristotelianism in the Jewish and Islamic contexts, which may not be so important from the point of view of contemporary institutionalized theology considered ahistorically, but is very important from any more historical perspective (including any historical account of the development of Catholic theology). Wareh (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem editors

Good evening.

I was intrigued by your comment here.

Am I to understand that you have also had problems with User:Perspicacite? If so, as a relatively new editor, I would appreciate learning from your experiences and if there is any permanent resolution to be found. I thank you in advance for any assistance and/or insights you are able to offer, Edward. Alice.S 16:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't that user! edward (buckner) 18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your informative and helpful comments on my user talk page, Edward. I've stolen two quotations from you and put them on my user page here entirely without your permission or approval. If you don't like that (or wish to change the section title - I tend to use tabloid-like headings in my news sections) just make whatever changes you think are appropriate (or tell me and I'll make them). I really like your contributions and actually think you've been remarkably tolerant and patient with the "f***wits". Alice.S 10:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Metaphysics (Aristotle)

I've responded at the article talk page. If you accept my advice that the bolder sketch you've put in the "Overview" would be better in an article on another topic, fine. If you're not convinced at all, we don't need to hash out the details; I'm not sure I have the time or energy to say more on this than I've said. I'm happy letting my talk-page critique stand as my only contribution, and I will not single-handedly remove or revert the overview. If it's not just the two of us, voices crying out in the wilderness, then other editors can come along and decide they feel strongly enough about the merits of the feasible alternatives to intervene. I hope there are no hard feelings for my skepticism about the overview qua neutral and factual smoothing of the road into that article. Wareh 04:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that I was assuming you are the same as 86.139.24.195 (in the Metaphysics article history). If that was a mistake, please let me know, and make the appropriate modifications to my message. Wareh 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you. About your question, you might want to read this. I can vouch for the individual in question's dedication to quality content. Relata refero 09:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed User:Manning Bartlett is an option as well. I hadn't noticed him in the list earlier, but I remember him quite well. Relata refero 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question

... has an answer :)

It's here. Please read, and let me know if you have any follow-on questions, either on that page or privately as you wish. You also have email too.

Thank you - and if you have any more, do ask :)

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there's an ettiquette, but I myself asked about postng a question there for you, and was told thats not what the pages are for (discussion). So you got the question via email instead.

What I'd suggest is, can we talk by email, and at the end, if something needs saying and pointoing out on either side, we put it there and let people make of it what they will. I hope also you got my email too, if so let's talk there. I'll be around so able to reply quickly (subject to wrists being weary from all the nonstop typing). Would that work? If so, you have my email, drop me a reply. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another email or 2 - in case your system doesn't tell you automatically. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes

I had read it. I would advise you to refrain from further attempts to sway the vote like this. >Radiant< 17:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)