User talk:Peter Damian (old)

Please delete my user page. It was, after all, stupid ever to come back here. Peter Damian (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And as you read this, ponder why someone who wrote History of logic - the kind of article which would be in most standard encyclopedias, but was not in Wikipedia in decent form until two weeks ago - has been forced to leave the place. This cult of civility. A sort of moral panic, to blame the defects of the project on. Peter Damian (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, you got a raw deal. It's people like you who will make this project respectable. We need to keep you around. Zagalejo^^^ 18:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that things have come to this. Your incivility was refreshing. Having watched you and the responses you have wrought these past few weeks I shall waste little more of my time on this project. You were treated appallingly. Best. Poltair (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, Peter, if you are going to take things really personally and over-react to things, then you're going to get that kind of problem. Sure, you did good work to an article, but that does not give you the right to hurl accusations at people who don't immediately see that we absolutely must have an article on someone who was once mentioned in a single book but of whom nothing else whatsoever is known. It really doesn't help your case, you know? Guy (Help!) 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Just this once. Guy, it was not so much that, it was [1] this that got me angry, plus the fact I was obviously at work on all three articles at the time. I am not coming back until I have a serious apology from the aptly-named 'stifle'. Peter Damian (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Ouch, what happen? bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

I work on a major article, which amazingly hadn't been properly covered here before, put in 'in use' tag on it, and 'Stifle' nominates it for deletion while I am still at work. I naturally get angry, as I tend to, and I get blocked. Peter Damian (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the AfD, overturned in about half an hour. The guy leaves abusive messages and that stupid hand sign on my talk page, I get v angry, bang that's it. I REALLY have had enough. Peter Damian (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It may have helped if I had put inverted commas round the article 'C---'. What I meant was, an article on this topic was certainly more worthwhile than an article about some obscene word. Peter Damian (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And I really am finished with this. The place has turned into some banana republic. As I comment here in the corresponding WR thread, the next step is to use what influence I have in the academic world, and I do have a little, and a few letters to such places as the Sloan Foundation who are funding this travesty, to try and stop this project dead. There is no point continuing. Peter Damian (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RAAAAWR! Checkup WP:AN thread, see little Peter baited. No wonder angry. Zilla sad not see this sooner. :-( bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC). P.S. You have been Stifled.

Letter to Doron Weber now in preparation, plus to Peter Suber. Peter Damian (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What a completly crappy and pathetic block! Damian should be unblocked at once. AFDing a page with an inuse tag is nothing short of trolling and deliberate provocation - Stifle deserved a verbal biffing for being so deliberatly provocative. Giano (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

peter, I think I am among the strongest supporters of traditional academic content here,as well as one of the most generally anti-deletionist. But I did think one of the articles in question relatively empty of content even by my standards for historical content of this sort. Even in an article like this, it would be possible to add some general context, to indicate why the mathematicians mentioned in that particular book are therefore significant. I know I;'d like to know more myself, and Im sure Guy would also--it is not immediately obvious to either of us nonspecialists. Surely you know how to take the apparently driest material and show its true interest. I participate a little at one of the more academically oriented wikis also, but it is still worthwhile talking to the general public, on its own terms. Certainly our friend peter suber does this very well. We relatively traditional people here must not abandon the project to the fans of professional wrestling and commercial porn. I grant them their own role; they must grant us ours--and we must use it as best we can. It is worth teaching the uneducated, not leaving them in disgust at their lack of knowledge. courtest too can be taught--and taught by example. DGG (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I would have done but that idiot (yes) deleted them twice - wise and good suggestions from you both but it is impossible to work under these conditions. Anyway, it was the third (miracles) article I was bothered about. Peter Damian (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say that I think the suggestion you got to work on stuff in your userspace is a good one. It may seem silly to do it that way but trust me, if you do, you won't get pestered nearly as much about unfinished articles. I sometimes have stuff in my userspace for months or years. The only drawback is if you need fair use images to illustrate things. I hope that helps. I hope to see you editing again soon. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your block

For the record (since you quickly removed my notice from your page), I'll reiterate that the short block I imposed was to stop the behavior that was quickly escalating from incivility to outright hostility. As is always the case, blocks are preventative and not punitive; you need but agree to maintain the decorum we expect for proper collaborative work to have your editing privileges returned.

Incidentally, if you have concerns that you have been treated unfairly or that an admin has made an improper decision, calling them an idiot is not the proper response. Ask around politely for support, and you'll get plenty of people to give you a hand. Lashing out might be cathartic, but it's never productive. — Coren ^(talk) 00:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

After further discussion with other admins, I have agreed to end the block now. Keep in mind, however, that proper behavior is nonetheless required at all times; this is first and foremost a collaborative endeavor, and while your expertise is welcome it must not be at the expense of a collegial atmosphere. Not everyone will always act according to your expectations, and you will again face frustrating circumstances— keeping a cool head is a must. — Coren ^(talk) 01:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying AFDing a page with an "in use" tage is fostering a "collegial atmosphere"? - No?. Let's go over to Stifle's page and see what you have told him on the subject. Is there a reason you have said nothing there? Wow, nothing at all. I must try and use this new variation of collegiality myself. Giano (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious that the block was premature and over the top, when the AFD was illegitimate given the time period. It could even be judged as vandalism to which the 3RR rule does not apply. I would have expected a responsible admin to look at the context and address the issue with Stifle as well. Especially as it would only take a few moments to establish that this is an area in which Peter has deep expertise. It does seem on the face of it to be admin backing admin. I have seen far more abusive language and reaction than Peter's go unpunished. --Snowded TALK 09:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Proper behaviour at all times for me would include not nominating a potentially major article for deletion 15 minutes in, with an 'in use' tag applied, and not politely notifying the author. Peter Damian (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - but the cult of civility has gone too far

Thank you for the many kind and sympathetic comments. Some of the summaries are not quite accurate (e.g. it was not the deletion of the two smaller pages that upset me, but the big article) - I have left a detailed account of what actually happened on Wikipedia:AN#COMMENT.

I am not returning after this. To be blocked last week simply for raising an AfD (this time thoroughly deserved), and then to be blocked again in these circumstances indicates a systematic dysfunction of the project. It has really gone too far. It is now being run by an undisciplined bunch of hooligans who apply one minimal standard of civility to themselves, and another strange and cultish and North Korean one to those who actually do the work. There is clearly nothing more that can be done here. Thanks to those brave souls who persevere, and the best of luck with your endeavours.

[edit] It is not a matter of 'going the extra mile' for content contributors. It is the way that justified, pershaps strongly-worded complaints to the camp guards are regarded as 'breaches of civility'. This cult of civility has gone too far. Peter Damian (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hume & Spinoza

Hi Peter. If you're still around, and willing to offer some quick advice, I could do with some. I agree that the article is important, so I've been thinking of helping to develop it. However, I doubt I have anything like your knowledge of Spinoza. I'm much better with Hume. :) Towards that end, do you think it would be worth mentioning Hume's approach on the probability of miracles? It clearly differs from Spinoza, as it allows miracles to exist (as you mention in the lead), but I though it might provide a good contrast. The second is whether or not you're aware of where Hunter's "Spinoza on miracles" paper sits in the literature. I've been enjoying it, and his distinction between strong and weak miracles seems like it might be worth working into the article, as does the conclusion he draws in relation to Spinoza's stance on the existence of miracles. Mind you, it will take some time before I can catch up on teh literature to do any real work on this - I'm much better on phil. of mind and epistemology. - Bilby (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - as you see I've had enough for at least two months. Yes, Hume's account of miracles - there is an article Of Miracles already on the project - would be relevant. Also, and I didn't have time to work on this, is that Spinoza may (unlike Augustine) have been using the same argument to suggest that there aren't miracles. Check out the article in the SEP on Spinoza. Peter Damian (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I note the Of Miracles article was written by User:Mel Etitis, an Oxford philosopher far more distinguished than I, who I collaborated with a lot in the earlier days of Wikipedia. He, too, has gone, and for very similar reasons. Peter Damian (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's effectively what Hunter is arguing against: that Spinoza has been interpreted as arguing against the existence of miracles, but Hunter believes that this is an incorrect interpretation. The strong/weak distinction (unknown vs unknowable) seems to be an interesting approach to allowing miracles, in a sense, to exist. I'll have to spend some time on the SEP article: it looks excellent, as you would expect. - Bilby (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)