User talk:Banno

Old stuff: [1], [2], [3] [4] [5] [6]

Good Job, Archivist Banno

Much appreciated - You're a good Archivist! Thanks for archiving my too loooooong Talk/Discussion page.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wish all my customers were as grateful ! Banno 21:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on what you do for, or to them. Ludvikus 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singerman list

An editor jumped the gun and did the above when I had a mere stub there. Now he changed his mind but his actions remains. I wonder what your position would be? Can you drop by there and leave your comment? Thanks. Ludvikus 03:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in this topic, and have a matching understanding. Looks like it will either be kept or merged, so it shouldn't be a problem for you. Banno 08:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No wonder you support the view that Philosophy is Rational (or some cognates of the same) enquiry.

And what did Aristotle not enquire about? Or Bertrand Russell? Or Hegel (but him you don't like, right?)?

Best, --Ludvikus 11:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Morning Post

Dear Banno,

I think I finally have a small editors' war - this time over something silly. I hold that "The" belongs to the name of the paper above. My opponent disagrees and keeps reverting my edit. I've given supportive arguments & citations on the Talk page. He just says there's no evidence, etc. Could you put on your Administrator hat and get over there to resolve the dispute? Thanks. --Ludvikus 15:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

National Labor Federation

Problems with User:Malbrain continue.[7] Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

But what grounds are there for a block, according to WP:BAN? I sort of hoped that given some rope, he might provoke a stronger response and so provide warrant for a block, but that has not occurred. Frankly, I don't see these mostly harmless, although incoherent, talk page ramblings as problematic; you might consider a short-term block in the hope that his interests will move elsewhere. I will not unblock him again. Banno 01:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the unusual tone of my presentation in editing both the article and the talk page. I've tried a new approach for the recruitment section, and we'll just have to see what user CBERLET does next. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 23:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, user CBERLET reverted my work on the recruitment section -- he just spouts JARGON as a magic-keyword and hits his button. What am I supposed to do about this? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

FORMAL COMPLAINT -- NATLFED article

User CBerlet is hereby charged with obstructing development of the NATLFED article. What do I need to do to lodge this complaint formally? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 18:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the helpful pointers on my talk page. I'll try to go through all the material tomorrow during the day while I'm at work.karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 23:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've updated my user-talk page with the latest status on this dispute. Again, thanks for taking the time to sort this out. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in the Russian Revolution

Dear Banno,

How are you?

I have a problem with a User in the Article above. He has Reverted my editing Three times - in violation of the WP Rule. His name is User:Irpen. I guess you would call it an edit war by now. I Removed an inappropriate, racist, Propaganda Poster, and he is the only one who objects. If you are going to Protect the page, please do so with my version (no Poster) since I have not violated the rule against Reverting Three Times. Thank you. --Ludvikus 05:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I count three reverts - that's the limit. Any more from either party would be a violation, and attract a block. I see no reason to protect at this stage. Banno 08:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well my editorial adversary has reverted for the fourth time.
• He has disregarded the Talk page (the remedy you recommended).
• Since I did Not revert more than three (3) times, I ask that the Block be made with my version.
• I maintain that the Racist Propaganda Poster of Trotsky is unsourced/unreferenced and does not support the article.
• Accordingly, please Revert to my version, and Block the Article. Thanks. --Ludvikus 02:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I still count three reverts by Irpen [8],[9],[10],and one by Makkalai [11], as well as the three by yourself. Banno 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so it's 3 per editor, not total reverts per article? --Ludvikus 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am appalled by Ludvikus' resorting to block shopping when unable to get the article your way by other means. --Irpen 05:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think User:Irpen thinks I'm "block shopping" by contacting you, Banno. He is apparently unaware that you are an Administrator. You are a person I should contact regarding editorial disputes.

Banno, what do you think, should I leave Antisemitism and return to Philosophy now? --Ludvikus 12:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the appropriate thing to do would be to use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, if a breach of that rule occurs. Banno 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Banno, I'll remember that in the future. --Ludvikus 21:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

It would be nice, for a change, if you helped avoid getting into trouble before hand. Or do you think I should return to philosophy? I believe that Editor User:Mikkalai just Vandalized my work. I ask you to examine the situation and advise accordingly - so that I will not be Blocked forever!!!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at what you wrote here, Ludvikus. It doesn't tell me what was vandalised, nor why you think it constitutes vandalism. What situation are you talking about? It doesn't provide me with anything that I can use to help you, yet it is written as if I have a responsibility to lend you some assistance. Are you threatening to disrupt the philosophy articles if I do not do something? What is it that you want me to do? Put plainly, the post above is disruptive. Continue on this course, and I will block you. Banno 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been frustrated with User:Mikkalai Reverting my work twice at Chinese in the Russian Revolution. But #Adminstrator User:BrownHairedGirl has come through and I think solved the problem.

1. I did not know Reverting arbitrarily is distinct from Vandalism. The difference was made clear to me by another.
2. Also, the Page at the Chinese in the Russian Revolution is now locked, and I and two other editors, including a wonderful Adminstrator named Richard, seem to be working things out.
3. But I'm "shocked" that you consider my proposal to return to Philosophy to be a threat in which you now say you're going to block me. You really think that's a "threat"? I was saying that this experience here was becoming no less frustrating than there, at philosophy.
4. You had complimented me on my return - now you responded to me like you really are looking for me to mess up so you could block me. Why?
5. Let me tell you again: BHG has solved the problem.
6. It would be nice if you looked at the number of Reversions which User:Mikkalai has used up against me, refusing to make peace with me, and you showed some fairness towards me. I already know how harsh you are regarding misconduct at Wikipedia.
7. What I've not seen yet is a sense of Fairness towards me. Why is it that you do not give some Warning to this editor named Mikkalai who will not compromise with me whatsoever. Why don't you look at the history of my offer to make peace with him?
8. I'm asking you for help precisely because you are a tough guy when you believe that someone has violated WP Rules.
9. Yet I am trying to tell you that this particular user has no respect for me whatsoever - and what do you do? You tell me that you are going to block me if this keeps up.
10. I suspect we are having communication problems You and I.
11. Please, please, please, have a talk with User:Mikkalai and ask him what the problem is.

Thank you. --Ludvikus 23:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

--Ludvikus 23:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NATLFED -- WHOSASKING for understanding

"Malbrain, I can't understand you, in either your comments to the talk page..." is the criteria being used by user WHOSASKING to make reverts of my edits. Since when does any one editor have to understand all the material of a subject known by the other editors? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 01:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"mentally damaged person" --User:Mikkalai

OK, Banno, I understand. I'll do my best to heed your advice.

But look what just happed while I was reading your letter.

I do not respond well to provocation - which you must know.

I do believe you are sincere.

But can you please come to my defense for a change?

What did I do to deserve this latest outburst? This personal attack?

“ I am fine with article protected with this glaring nonsense in the middle. I will not mediate with this obviously mentally damaged person. If wikipedia don't want or cannot deal with such people, my only answer here is the revert button. If you don't see the idiotism or intentional disruption in this page, let us wait until some newspaper makes a laughing stock of it. `'Míkka 03:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC) ”

• Please help me for a change against this kind of abuse.
• It's very, very, difficult to follow your advice when a Wikipedian calls me a "mentally damaged person."

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you need a thick hide to edit here. Such rudess is unwanted, and certainly does not help whatever case Míkka thinks he or she is presenting. Let the situation cool down - there is no necessity to respond. Banno 04:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

48 hour Block on the other - editor/administrator

Dear Banno,

You must know that BHG has imposed a 48 hour Block on the other editor involved in the so-called disruption.

That issue is under discussion on the Administrator's notice board. In that regard, my conduct is also being discussed.

At the same time, you probably more than anyone else, knows me best as a Wikipedian.

So I'm rather surprised that you are not voicing your view there.

I urge you to do so - I do not think that I'm as unreasonable as some are depicting me.

I think you can portray a more balanced picture of me than anyone else at Wikipedia can because you know me best.

I think that BHG could benefit from your observation.

I do not wish to believe that Wikipedia is merely a matter of consensus and politics.

I think it is your duty to participate in that discourse.

You, especially, are extremely knowledgable as to her actions regarding myself.

I do not understand why your voice is not there - on that notice board.

Do you, or do you not, support her 48-hour Block of Mikkalai?

You cannot remain neutral on this - you, of all people, know what happened best - you have been observing me very carefully to see if I should be banned forever.

So your judgment as to User:Mikkalai's contribution - if any - to the alleged disruption at Wikipedia is more informed. :According, I urge you to make your views known.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR Reversion violation at Chinese in Russian Revolution

Keeping you posted, I'm proceeding with extreme caution so as to avoid anything which might be construed as "disruption."

Now I wish to inform you that there has been a third Reversion by Administrator User:Mikkalai.

I certainly had nothing to do with that latest incident at Chinese in the Russian Revolution. Nor do I intend to touch that page except with a "ten-foot-pole."

I wonder what your response to that will be. Is this Administrator just too powerful? Is that what you mean by consensus? Is it a matter of being able to stand up to his misconduct? Is bullying to be tolerated at Wikipedia?

Is that what is mean by "consensus" at Wikipedia?

Cheers. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder at you, Ludvikus. Can you really not see that your post above is rude and provocative? I am not under any obligation to you, nor to the 3RR rule. If you have spotted a breach, you can post it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. As for you proceeding with caution, your post indicates to me that you have yet to realise what is problematic in your behaviour. Banno 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see my rudeness at all.

You made it clear to me that you are under the lookout

to see if I violate any rules whatsoever so that you may conclude

that I be Blocked from Wikipedia forever.

It's my neck that's on the line, not yours.

I've also pointed out the extreme vulgarity and provocation by this person who is the other partner in the alleged disruption. And you have done nothing about it but lecture me about needing to have a "tuff skin" at WP.

And now you say that I'm "rude"? To whom? To him? To you? Who am I rude to?

My understanding is that you do have an obligation both to me and to Wikipedia.

It is you who supported my being blocked.

It is you who knows me better than any other administrator.

I think that Administrator BHG has identified the other partner to the dispute.

And you know what's going on very well - because you said often that you've been watching me carefully.

So i'm simply asking you to do the right thing here.

I'm utterly shocked to hear you say that you have no obligation.

That definitely makes me want to leave Wikipedia forever.

I urge you to make your views on the matter known - which is your duty as an Administrator who has been directly involved with all the parties herein.

I do not think that it is proper for you to just let things blow over.

That makes me feel that Wikipedia is a club of "in" and "out" where the "in" know how to behave.

I do not wish to be in such company.

So I can assure you that my behavior at Wikipedia will be cautious in the extreme.

In that way I can only be Blocked because I will not conform to the unfair "boys club" rules of the "back room."

That's how your response above makes me feel.

Can you take it? Or will you block me for that alone?

Yours truly,

PS1: I am absolutely shocked by your response above, Banno.

PS2: Let me remind you, that it was you who contact me

after your 6-month Block of me over Philosophy.

It is you who has tarnished my record as a Disruptor.

Every time an Administrator looks at my record, (s)he sees Your 6-month Block

So, yes, absolutely, you do have a special responsibility towards me, even if you do not see it.

Yours truly --Ludvikus 00:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The image on my user profile page

Is this an acceptable image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am eclipsed (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda ugly though; I made it with my computer's paint feature. I'll likely request it be deleted and upload another, BETTER image for my user profile. Anyways, thanks for the welcome. I am eclipsed 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Alan Carter Crusade

The page Alan Carter (philosopher) and several related spellings thereof have been recently created by someone using several IPs (including this one) and registered accounts such as User:Carterab and User:Carterab1952. The philosopher is non-notable and the user (I'm positive it's one person) has resorted to vandalism and the removal of critical comments on talk pages in order to promote the pages (which I would bet my bottom dollar are about himself). The pages should all be deleted, and the registered accounts and IPs blocked, but I have no idea how to go about putting in requests for that kind of thing. I ask for your assistance in getting this done, as well as any instructions on how to proceed on similar matters in the future . Thanks. Postmodern Beatnik 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

It's almost done: Glossary of philosophical isms.

The Transhumanist 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for help: Existentialism

Banno, I know you've helped out with disputes and problem editing in philosophy articles in the past. I became involved in a stand-off between two editors involving the introduction to the Existentialism article. An editor with no account, just the IP address 71.247.12.83, has been trying to enforce an introduction involving his own interpretation of Heidegger. He (or she) refuses explicitly to provide citations, and won't engage in real discussion of the issues on the Talk Page - see [here (tedious I'm sorry)] and [here]. When another editor reverts his introduction, for which he has no supporting citations or consensus, he accuses us of edit warring. I have proposed an alternative with specific references to good sources, and he accuses me of plagiarism. Not sure what to do: I'd like to get other good philosophy editors involved so that the consensus is crystal clear, but short of posting on random philosophy talk pages, I don't know how to do that. I don't know if I should go straight to the Admin noticeboard, or try to get another editor involved so we can do a RfC.

Any advice would be most welcome (or suggestions, of course, about who else I should ask).KD Tries Again (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I appreciate the advice, Banno, and the comment on the Talk Page.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Dear Banno, this is not about WP:Verifiability or WP:Consensus (nobody questions them at the slightest) and I think you might have been mislead. As we all know, there are two basic principals: Wikipedia is intended for laymen with high school (secondary, middle, grammar, ...) education, and, when presenting something (term), it is necessary to say first of all, what it is (refers to). Both elements ARE MISSING from the lead of Existentialism and Phenomenology (philosophy), and, when you start reading Wikipedia about both, you have no clue, what each actually means, though you get a lot about irrelevant circumstances compiled from various sources - very inconsistent with WP:LEAD. This is the crux of the issue. The complaint about my refusal "to provide citations" for the 1st sentence of both leads is silly, since nobody reasonable references the 1st sentences, as each should be a synthesis of the term (general knowledge). To see quality of my 1st sentence edits (existentialism and phenomenology), you could check the Encyclopedia Britannica or Webster's Dictionary for a comparison and the present versions.
• Please, adjust your your "Outside opinion" accordingly to this my clarification and let them know that good faith does not end at editing, but pertains also to other aspects of Wikipedia including requests for help of the administrators.
• I am an advanced Wikipedia editor, whose IP address changes from time to time. This case resembles Talk:Diabetes mellitus#Mediator, where my opponents called a mediator (with Ph.D.), who decided in my favor, because of the very obvious statistical and humanitarian reasons (who would think that anyone could have opposed a very minute lead mention that could be helpful to hundreds of thousands of diabetics). Unfortunately, some editors' motives can be very, very sad... .
• In this case, the editors unjustly favor Sartre, struggle with synthesizing and making their own comparison independently from, what anybody wrote (you need that skill), all necessary to produce proper leads' 1st sentences that should synthesize and also be original. For that purpose, the skill and a general knowledge is all needed, but not quotations. E.g., see the recent great edits and their summaries by JimWae after I added "Metaphysics" to the lead of Ontology. Despite his initial objection and without my involvement, he retained it in the lead very well compacted only by him. In the past, I did the same with the leads of most of Intel's microprocessors, but with appreciation of other editors. Sadly, it is not the case now. Sincerely. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Banno, thanks for your attention to the Existentialism article. I do see the need for RfC. I thought that this week I'd try to edit sections completely apart from the two sentences which have resulted in the current impasse. If editing is blocked in other sections of the article too, I think it will make it even clearer what the problem is.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Sounds fine. In the meantime, I sugest an RFC on the article. Banno (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Rationalism

Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationalist movement. It's fallout from a 2006 discussion that you participated in. Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Philosophical societies

I have nominated Category:Philosophical societies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Philosophy organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Greg Bard 02:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

In reference to your claim that Wittgenstein couldn't spell, please note that "shew" is an acceptable, though archaic, way to spell "show" in Great Britain.Lestrade (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Investigations&diff=prev&oldid=139877740 Nothing ruins a joke more than having to explain it. Banno (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Banno. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MSU Interview

Dear Banno,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy 9th Wikipedia Anniversary to you :)

Hi Banno :) Greetings on your 9th Wikipedia Anniversary since your joining of Wikipedia on 14 September, 2003! Best Wishes. Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Banno.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Banno.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles deletion

Dear Bano, I apologize for the inconvenience, but have no other way than appealing for administrators’ help recover a deleted article.

I published a film article entitled Drits (Derivas), a film by Portuguese director Ricardo Costa. It is the second film from an autobiographic trilogy, Faraways. The article was kept untouched by several months. To my surprise, it was recently eliminated and redirected to the director’s page with no discussion. I undid the redirection, but saw the article was proposed to deletion. Reason: independent, verifiable, secondary resources. I argued that the article couldn’t have but primary sources (the producer’s ones) as it is an upcoming film, like many others listed at upcoming films. A film that has not yet been premiered or distributed may not be commented. Besides, none of the films so listed has ever been deleted or even contested.

At last, in discussion, user User:reddogsix proposed that the article should be renamed to Drifts (film) or similar, and at the same time put at the disambiguation page of Dritf this reference «Drifs, unreleased film by Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). I created a new page for the same article entitled Drifts (Portuguese film). As the semantic root “drift” seemed to be the problem, I replaced the article name to Derivas (Drifts) and published it once more with some improvements. As a result, the article was fast deleted and I blocked for three days.

In the meantime, a new article about the trilogy was published: Faraways, which was proposed to fast deletion as well by the same user, User:reddogsix.

Although unreleased, although having no reliable secondary sources, Drifts is unquestionably an outstanding film for its uniqueness and characteristics: autobiography, comedy, docufiction, metafiction in one. I guess that “outstanding” may be a synonym for “notable” in such cases and that articles like this shouldn’t be deleted without previous cared analyses: important information may be lost.

This sequence of interventions is clearly a personal attack by User:reddogsix, supported by two or three user friend. It has no other explanation. It contributes in nothing to improve articles quality. Mists article, which I created on 10 September 2010, is the latest example. The article structure was unreasonably modified, loosing clarity and useful content.

NOTE: sent to 30 administrators.

Thanks for your attention, User:Tertulius 20,55 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno^talk 17:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Banno. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Banno. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:KnowlTruth.png

The file File:KnowlTruth.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed my comments in the talk page of falsifiability (which were not commented) and my own contributions to falsifiability, only my work.

I cannot work on this article if it only gives the naive definition in the lead, because there are too many criticisms that are based on this naive definition and it will contribute to the confusion. The dilemma that I face is that though we can easily find these criticisms and easily see that they are due to the use of the naive definition, I cannot say that this fact is acknowledged clearly in a predominant way in the literature. What do you do in this case? You see many sources that present one point of view. You see many other sources presenting another point of view, clearly opposed. You know that the reason is a naive definition, but this is not made clear in the literature. What do you do? You present the naive definition in the lead as if it was OK? I cannot do that. It would be like contributing to the confusion. You try to explain the controversy in the lead, because less than that would contribute to the confusion? I hoped that I could do that, but I cannot because it's not made clear in the literature and it would be original research. So, that's the reason why I have to retract my contributions. I was hoping that I could do something, but your tag made me realize that it was not possible. I don't blame you for the tag. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps now that I have removed my contributions, you should consider removing the tag. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sad because my intention was to write a nice article that simply follows the literature, the sources, but it is just not possible. I would have to remove the naive definition from the lead, which is OK in principle, because many sources does not give the definition at the start, but many people will be opposed. Promoting the naive definition in the lead, without making clear that it is problematic at the same time is not an option either for me. So there is no solution. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the tags is to attract attention to the article; the premise being that such attention will improve the article; specifically, it will help in overcoming the present impasse. If you can't work on the article, then don't. Banno (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I never said that I can't work on the article. I just said that I cannot work on an article with a lead that makes no sense. But, I have hope now, because I see that if the body of the article makes sense, then the lead will follow. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I want your opinion about the recent modifications on falsifiability.

Thank you again for your recent edits on falsifiability. You reorganized it. Most of what you removed deserved to be removed. However, what was left, though well structured, was not sourced and impossible to source. I am following reliable sources: Popper, Lakatos and many others. Given your recent interest, your opinion matters to me. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings from TPF

We've probably had some interactions here before since you're part of WP:Philosophy too, but I'm terrible with names and just now realized you're the same person I also know from the Philosophy Forums. Hi! --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. I haven't done much here for years, but the tedium of TPF has driven me here while I do a bit of recuperating. Banno (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Non sense: A hypothesis is falsifiable if some observation might show it to be false.

My first motivation when I started to work on Falsifiability was to remove this non sense. Many intelligent and rigorous 10th grade students that try to understand what this means must be very confused. I was confused myself. It could be that many others will be happy with this, but I cannot explain why. Rigorously, if it is possible to show that a law is false, then it has to be false. So, it is not the definition of Popper's falsifiability. Trying to compensate by adding "in principle" does not work. Mentioning just after that one counterexample is sufficient to disprove a law is a good introduction to falsificationism, but it does not make this non sense go away. Falsifiability, in opposition to falsification, is an abstract concept that is not easy to convey in concrete terms. I believe that this is our main point of disagreement. It can only be understood if you separate the logical side from the methodological side. On the logical side, you have a set of observational statements and the laws must contradict some of them. It's very simple, when you separate the logical side. Otherwise, it's just non sense. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)