User talk:Banno

KM

Greetings I have added stuff to the knowledge management page not sure if you are looking after things over there? Dgrey 03:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)Dgrey

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

interesting, but I can't see how this could work. What I have written has been substantially edited - how will you be able to extract my work from others? Banno 22:41, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified image

Thanks for uploading the image

• Image:Knowledge&belief.png

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 03:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, and discussion on animism

Hi Banno, thanks for your response on Talk:Agnosticism (hope your quip remains). I see you have an interest in language. Maybe you could help us with the "Comments from Daniel Quinn on article" discussion on Talk:Animism. Christiaan 11:12, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Totally disputed notice

I've put a totally disputed notice on the page Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared. I did this because Ungtss has started reformatting the page to be in the form fact, viewpoint, viewpoint. This will result in POV. Here is why:

Facts should the main point of an argument. We can divide the facts on this page into several categories. Facts about viewpoints, facts about natural phenonomen, facts about deductions from theories, facts about mathematical principles. By introducing the style given above Ungtss is letting only facts about natural phenonomen and facts about viewpoints into the article. If theory A predicts X but theory B does not the article could say that:

• Theory A predicts X. Adherents of theory B say it predicts X but many disagree.

Wereas in the new format this could only be written:

• Adherents of theory A believe it predicts X. Adherents of theory B believe it predicts X.

I would ask that you help remedy this problem with the article. I shall not have the time I'm afraid (See my User page). Barnaby dawson 14:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While you have my sympathy, I am writing a thesis and do not have time to become involved in such an exercise. Besides, my interest & expertise does not extend much beyond the philosophy of science. Banno 23:57, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy

Hi Banno, I saw your work on the Tractatus, and thought I'd drop in to say hello in the hope that you are a fellow philosopher. I have no far not found any on Wikipedia. It is an absence that it is very notable, not only because of the dearth of good philosophy pages, but also generally because of the lack of critical thinking seen in certain pages, particularly policy pages, in my view anyway. Are there others besides us (assuming you are one)?  :-) SlimVirgin 06:08, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

mysticism

Hi, Banno. I have a question about the epistemology article, on which you've done some good work recently. I'm unhappy with this sentence but not sure what to do to fix it. "Another common example [of irrationalism] is when a person believes that someone behind their back is watching them because they 'feel' it to be the case." It seems to me that such feelings likely come about through peripheral vision, of which we aren't fully conscious. It isn't obvious that trusting in such subliminal perceptions is irrational! After all, our prehistoric ancestors must have been able to perceive out when a sabre-toothed tiger was stalking them, even if they weren't able to dress it upon a syllogism. Those who weren't good at perceiving this, didn't pass on their gene line any further! --Christofurio 22:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

The particular example is certainly not mine, and I've never liked it; There seems to me to be a push in recent edits to remove what might be a perceived criticism of mysticism - a strange thing to want to do in an article on epistemology, the rational study of knowledge. I had not deleted the material because I wanted to see how it panned out, (mistakenly, as it seems, thinking that further editing would reveal the purpose of the example). I would certainly support your deleting it, since I agree with you that it is not a good example of the sort of irrational (no condemnation implied) mysticism that I was thinking of when I wrote originated the section on Irrationalism. Banno 06:27, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made a change. --Christofurio 20:58, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Begging the question

Thanks. Sorry if the debate got a little too heated, nothing personal of course ;) Cadr 23:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Language

Hi Banno, I apologize in advance for posting here if it is incorrect. I couldn't figure out how to post a new topic. (relatively new to the whole wiki thing) I've been watching the overview page for philosophy of language, and can't figure out where to go to complain that the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language#Overview seeems to be getting less and less accurate, as well as being "dumbed" down. I checked some of the older versions of the page and they were much better. Is there a way to contact you directly to discuss the page? Barring that, how do I post my concerns and where? Thanks Karyse

Welcome, Karyse. No problem with your posting here.

At the top of each page is a tab labelled "Discussion". Click on it and just add your comments to the bottom. To start a new thread, click on the little "+" symbol next to the edit tab. philosophy of language is a bit slack, and remember that the whole idea is that you can edit the article directly - just jump in and make changes. If people don;t like them they will make their own.

By the way, you sign a post on a talk page by placing four tilde characters after it - press ~ four times. Banno 19:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Meditation

Hi Banno, I wanted to say thanks for your comments regarding my note on the talk:meditation page. I'd like to include some of those notes in the actual article, perhaps this weekend, but I was wondering if you could outline your POV concerns so that I can incorporate them. Regards--Pariah 10:46, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

their's not a lot to do - just remove the first person stuff and add a few references, and I hope it will be fine. Banno 07:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cool--thanks, and will do--Pariah 08:47, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

The block was only set for 24 hours and by the time I read your email it was already over. When I read your email I checked the block list and saw there was no longer any block on that IP. Sorry if I neglected to reply to your email. Incidentally, your scolding (This is not the mark of an effective administrator) message on my talk page is a violation of Wikipedia:Wikiquette, specifically "assume good faith" and to a lesser degree "be polite". CryptoDerk 22:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. Lack of courtesy does indeed invite reciprocity. Note that you have not so far explained why I was blocked. Will it recur? Banno 22:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

On thinking about it, I don't see my comment as problematic. My banning was apparently both unjustified and arbitrary - at least, no explanation has so far been provided; Surely that is not good administration? You have apologised for not emailing me, but not for banning me. It is puzzling to me that I should "assume good faith" on the part of someone who banned me without explanation, and furthermore that I should be polite in the face of discourtesy.

Crypto, I'm pissed at you. I think I deserve better at the hands of Wiki admin.

I didn't ban you. The block log is public for anyone to see and if you look, you can see I blocked 203.26.16.66. Specifically, for edits like this, and this, and this. If you have a dynamic IP, you might get caught in a block sometime by someone who previously used it — unfortunately it happens quite a bit. If you use a dynamic IP you can expect it to happen again in the future. I have handled this situation with the utmost courtesy, and your responses up to this point I will chalk up to not being aware about dynamic IPs. CryptoDerk 23:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

So my blocking was collateral damage, an acceptable outcome of Crypto's "War on Vandalism". None (not one) of the edits cited was there for more than one minute before being removed by another user. But although I was not involved in this incident, I was blocked for 24 hours (as, presumably, were other editors on my ISP). Isn't that somewhat over-zealous? Banno 00:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Don't overreact. IPs vandalize, they get warned, and they are blocked. Just because vandalism is removed quickly doesn't give the green light for people to continue vandalizing Wikipedia. If you have a problem with the official policies of Wikipedia then you might want to start a poll to make it such that administrators cannot block anyone — don't take it out on me. CryptoDerk 23:36, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think vandalism as important an issue as you. But I'm over the blocking, and have moved on. Banno 07:39, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have placed the following onthe user page for User_talk:203.26.16.66

This is a dynamic IP address. Please take that into account before blocking, as the IP is used by legitimate users. If this vandal persists, please contact me and I will discuss the issue with my ISP. Banno 00:52, May 30, 2005 (UTC)Banno 01:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

IP misuse

Hey Banno just thought you might like to know that your ip 203.26.16.66 is still being used for vandalism. Hope you can find a way to stop the abuse of your IP. Jtkiefer 01:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

discussions with the service provider involved, TPG, have led to some alterations that should remove this problem.Banno

your contributions

There was a time when we disgreed about something (I actually can't remember what) and had some sort of personality conflict. I just want you to know that I have never seen you make anything other than excellent, factually accurate, NPOV edits to the article namespace, and I very much appreciate that. It is editors such as yourself that make this an encyclopedia worth reading. Sam Spade 18:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are many who would disagree as to the quality of my editing, Sam. Thank you again. Banno

Hypothetico-deductive method

"intro should not specify only hypothetico-deductive method"

What other methods are there?

I've got the impression that many opposing "the scientific method", do so because they don't think the scientific method is a recipe, neither do I. There are many ways to find a new theory, but is essential for any scientific work to test the theory with reality. The cycle "theory -> test -> theory" is for me the scientific method.

Do you think there are other scientific methods not following such a cycle? Markus Schmaus 28 June 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Well, hypothetico-deductive method derives from Popper, and was a reply to induction. Other possibilities include Coherentism, Bayesian inference, and the scientific communities of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The cycle you describe is not peculiar to hypothetico-deductive method, but at home in each of these alternative methods. The present article is deficient in not differentiating these, but fixing this is a huge job. Banno June 29, 2005 08:42 (UTC)

Do you agree that step one to four are essential for scientific work?

No. Banno

Could you name a step, which is not essential?

Bayesian inference is not an alternative to step one to four, but is one way to come up with a theory in step two.

No, it is a process for testing steps 2 - 3. As such it is dependent on step 1. Banno

How does it test steps 2-3? How can anything test a step? It might perform step 2-3, is that what you mean? But how does Baysian inference help with deducing a prediction from a theory? Markus Schmaus

Coherentism, is a philosophy about Truth, but it does not describe any process.

Quine and his followers intended it as a description of rational thought, and so of the scientific process. It is commonly held to be a contender for a description of the scientific method. See, for example, the Churchlands. Banno

Rational thought is not science, just as math is not physics. I can see no process involved with coherentism. It might deny the validity of the scientific method, but it is not a method itself. Markus Schmaus

Scientific revolutions do not contradict the process as it is currently described. As Kuhn said: "That is not a relativist's position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific progress". Markus Schmaus 29 June 2005 16:58 (UTC)

But Kuhn let the daemon of social relativism out of the bag. He may have wanted to put it back, but did not succeed. Banno June 29, 2005 18:31 (UTC)

It is not relative if your computer is working or arson is poisonous. This is exactly the form of predictions scientific theories are making. Anyway, like coherentism, social relativism is not a method. It might deny that empirical tests are possible, and thus claim scientific work is nonsense, but its not an alternative. Markus Schmaus

Could you give me some of your background, as this might make it easier to understand each other?

I'm a student of mathematics working on my Diplomarbeit (kind of master thesis), with theoretical physics as second subject. Markus Schmaus 30 June 2005 01:34 (UTC)

Although I have post-grad qualifications in Philosophy, management and education, including Philosophy of language and of science, I think such questions are out of place on the Wiki. One of the most attractive things about the Wiki for me is that it is the arguments, not the authority, of the editors that counts.

Although it is a pleasure to discuss such things, I can't see the point in the present context. If you have a difficulty with some of my editing, please take the discussion to that page, and I will join with you. But this page is not a forum.

Best wishes for your diploma, and perhaps we can continue this discussion in context. Banno June 30, 2005 11:34 (UTC)

As a mathematician, I do not believe in proof by authority. I asked, because the meaning of words depends on the people using them. If a mathematician talks about proofing something, he means something different than a judge.

I started this discussion on your talk page, because I was interested in your position. If other people join a discussion your position might not allways become clear. Markus Schmaus 30 June 2005 15:56 (UTC)

Well, thank you for having an interest in my opinion. I'll answer your questions. I think that Paul Feyerabend makes a good case that any or all of the scientific method#Elements of a scientific method could be left out of a particular scientific argument and yet still make progress. I hope that the editing I did at Bayesian inference#Evidence and the scientific method makes it clear that Bayesian inference is a contender for formalising induction, although at the cost of dropping objectivity. If rationality is not a method, a thing that we do to reach a conclusion, then what is it? And social relativism is a method, claiming (roughly) that scientific statements are true IFF scientists say they are true, and that one can determine their truth only by asking scientists. That it is a remarkable poor method does not make it less of a method. Banno June 30, 2005 20:13 (UTC)

James Mill?

I see you put back the link to James Mill in Political philosophy. I'm curious why. I see you've edited a bunch of philosophy-related pages, so I reckon you know something about the area... which makes it seem that much odder (IMO) to find James Mill "major". I'm not going to edit-war over a trivial issue like that, but I was hoping you could provide some insight into why you feel he is worth listing .(when I can think of several dozen political philosophers, off the top of my head, whom I find more important, but are not listed). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2005 July 3 06:37 (UTC)

So list 'em. The problem is with the adjective "Major", not the listing. The father of J.S. Mill should be linked from Political philosophy. Banno July 3, 2005 08:15 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bit trite. I think that More links is better than less, and that the connection between Bentham, J. S. Mill and Mill's father gives an indication of the way liberalism resulted from middle-class concerns. But it is not a central interest of mine, so I won't revert again if you think it important. Banno July 3, 2005 08:23 (UTC)

I think there is some value to having a smaller rather than huge list. For example, there are probably several hundred books published in political philosophy every year, each by an authentic political philospher (most of them non-major). I think WP readers of the Political philosophy entry would just be swamped and confused to look for the "important" names among the "lesser" ones, especially if they did not already have a sense of the canon before reading the article.

What would you think of a compromise in which I created another page List of political philosophers that did not try to be canonical, but we winnowed down the "major" list on the Political philosophy page (but linked to the bigger list)? That would let me feel more comfortable removing a few more as well; e.g. Popper is a very major in Philosophy of science, but somewhat secondary in political philosophy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2005 July 3 15:18 (UTC)

As I said, this is not an issue of overwhelming import to me; but any list or "major" contributors to a field will of necessity be POV I would like to see Popper in such a list, for example). Another alternative would be to remove the list, leaving only links to those mentioned in the text. Or remove the list ad provide the wider list you suggest. At the least, the list should be alphabetised and put into two columns. Banno July 3, 2005 19:34 (UTC)

Hopefully we can reach a version we agree on. But I just wanted to mention that the linked (not necessarily "major" list I created is in chronological rather than alphabetical order. I worked on added dates for each to make that more clear. On the political philosophy page the names are also meant to be chronological. I guess I wouldn't really mind making the section of "major" thinkings alphabetical, but I think the chronological order is more informative (i.e. who potentially influenced whom). I definitely want the big list to be chronological.

Obviously, chronology isn't 100% black-and-white either. I am using year of birth, which is fairly unambiguous. But in a sense it would be more meaningful to order by "year of most important work"... but then lots of new judgement calls come in. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2005 July 3 23:31 (UTC)

Meaning, Language and Derrida

Bad old jokes die hard, it seems.

I worry that I've put too much info on the "philosophy of language" page. There's significant overlap between it and the "meaning" (and "the meaning of meaning") page. Should I start shuffling material around? Lucidish 4 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

What were you thinking of moving? Banno 04:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Would you comment?

Dear Banno,

I am new to Wikipedia, enormously impressed and at the same time disturbed. I don’t suppose I am raising anything new for you but would appreciate your comments.

After reading around and noticing the way that Wikipedia is structured and what is happening in the hierarchy and all the changes since May 04, [when a major new software infrastructure was introduced] it seems to me likely that Wikipedia is being used by western ‘intelligence’ not only to provide a way of keeping under surveillance those who might be troublesome but also of ensuring that in the most important fields of human knowledge and endeavour not only does Wikipedia provide a simple way of staying in touch with developments but, even more insidiously, a way of ensuring that these developments may even, to an extent, be ‘managed’ in a way that is as compatible as possible with western values and interests. NPOV seems as close to a definition of this as anyone is likely to be able to imagine.

I accept that I have no hard 'evidence' whatsoever for this surmise. At the very least, however, it would be a dereliction of duty were CIA, Homeland Security, MI6 and whoever else, not to infiltrate as far as possible and set up whatever mechanisms were possible to be able to track people, groups and movements over 200 languages and involved in discussions on every possible topic of human interest.

But I suggest that it is very unlikely that their involvement is limited in that way. It is more likely that they are supporting the development of Wikipedia and its community in order to be able to keep track of people and developments and foster what they consider to be positive change.

I would be very interested in your comments. I am sending this also to a few others whom I think would have something to add.

Jeffrey Newman 8 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much for posting to my page. Just what I needed – another secret service truck parked out the front… Banno 04:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I sympathise with Chomsky's early article (on the responsibility of intellectuals) which I have just found on Wikipedia.[1]I have been amazed by so many aspects of Wikipedia and as yet quite unable to make my mind up. It is as if it is 'too good to be true,' and potentially too time consuming as well. But, I posted the note on your page to acknowledge the quality of your contributions. Sorry! Jeffrey Newman 16:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No, my apologies for being facetious. Flattery will get you a long way. That the Wiki works at all is a credit to the general good will of the editors, and a reflection on humanity generally as a cooperative species.

I’m not convinced there would be sufficient benefit for the Intelligence community in a large-scale manipulation of the Wiki, as oppose to monitoring a few articles and users of interest. Banno 00:26, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy of science

I should like to alert you to some changes on the Philosophy of Science article which, on the whole, strike me as unfortunate. It boils the philosophy of science down to questions of the "success" of science. I admire your work, and, I note, you and I share some interests and views (I've followed some of your stuff on the Russell page). In any case, I don't have the stomach for any conflict, but I thought I'd pass it along. icut4u

thanks - I have been intending to make changes there. The material is too simplistic. Banno 21:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Got your message. OK, I'll give it a day or so to see if the anonymous editor or someone else cleans it up. If not, I'll do my best to repair it. icut4u

Hi. I just decided to revert it to where it was. I hate to do that, generally; but it clearly should not stand as it is; the anon user hasn't responded or tried to improve; and I haven't had a chance to do anything. icut4u

OK. Banno 23:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge

Banno - you recently reverted edits on Knowledge and labeled your justification as vandalism. [2] While I'm inclined to agree that the additions were not very helpful and probably shouldn't be in the article, I definately don't think they were done in bad faith. I think its clear that the editor was trying to add helpful examples to the two paragraphs (although I honestly don't know why she/he thought they needed them). I'm sure that it was just a mistake. best, --Kzollman 00:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, on checking, I see that I was wrong to call it vandalism. Banno 00:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

List of purported cults VfD

Please see the VfD on List of purported cults. I have participated heavily in this article, but now I am siding with supporting deletion. I think that it is being used as a way to throw mud at religious groups that are not mainstream and thus inherently POV. Read and vote if you wish at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_purported_cults/2 I think that it is an important precedent in regard to many lists in Wikipedia and their ability to attain NPOV. Thank you. --ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 04:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)