User talk:Nightskate

Welcome!

Hello, Nightskate! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jojhutton (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lila: An Inquiry into Morals, you may be blocked from editing. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at George Holmes Howison. Such attempts to avoid detection, or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. See 174.16.122.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply (L.S.)

Dennis, What's your problem? If You want the page without my suggestions, so be it, but alls I did was post a suggestion and Defend it onCe.

Tim (nightskate)

P.S. "Dennis Bratland": "and yo- nobody in my hood 's' got one."

Reply 2 (G.H.)

I liked Y~O~U~R music video selections!: think I'll keep 'em.

November 2013

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at George Holmes Howison, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at George Holmes Howison, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Spencer^T♦C 01:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nightskate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request that this block be removed. I value wikipedia. Particularly the George Holmes Howison page. The charge of vandalism is not only unfounded, but it is based on the esteem of but one other user, namely "Dennis Bratland". I rarely edit pages, but I have given some valuable contributions (and it amazes me beyond expressing that I could be banned for life just like this!). I think my first contribution was to "the pursuit of happiness" page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness&oldid=325345960 You can see that the quote (I think I was the first to) provided, by Adam Ferguson, persists to date. my addition to this "final cause" page persists: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_causes&oldid=556243597 Furthermore, I forgot to sign in on this series of revisions to the George Holmes Howison page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Holmes_Howison&oldid=558729381 but they are mine. That is, the technical parts of the current page are mine (hopefully you will see this from the fact that I was active on this page before the times I forgot to sign in, but also due to the referenced music videos). The life/background sections of the page were provided by Dr. Randall Auxier, professor of philosophy, southern Illinois university, and I can provide this link to our mentioning it: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/josiahroyce/xQr8rerVUCA I wonder how it I am here called a vandal? I certainly mean no vandalism in my mind. No one loves Howison (his philosophy) more than I do. And not only that, I would "go all in" that I am the world's foremost expert on "personal i[']dealism"! I supply poetry put to music which is intended to help make Howison's perspective more accessible. And Howison himself gives sufficient ground for this. At p.208 of "Limits": "By this principle, it is found that the recognized fine arts form an ascending series in the order in which I have already named them, - architecture, sculpture, painting, music, and poetry." at p.210: "Poetry, finally, is the form of art where not only are the unities of time, place, and action freed from the restrictive bounds of the single instant, the single spot, the single simple transaction, but the medium of embodiment is _thought itself, with its completely articulate utterance in language_. Here the very source of the ideal view of the world, the very origin of the creative artistic impulse, becomes the material and the instrument of its own purpose, the executor of its own will. The scope of the creative faculty is therefore the utmost conceivable, and poetry rightfully takes the highest place as the art of the greatest possibilities - the art, indeed, of an all-inclusive compass, as at length completely self-supplying and self-directing." I think Howison would be honored by my links. But one "Dennis Bratland" calls them vandalism and wikipedia bans me for life. A bit more, astounding how quickly Dennis Bratland was there to disparage my contribution and reprimand me as vandal. Do y'all notice such things? I do not edit wikipedia pages often. I do contribute to an online philosophy forum regularly. If you read the "criticism" section on the Howison page (which Dennis let stand), you know where to find me. It is there that I have argued to that (Pirsig's) "Metaphysics of Quality" community what I, with the utmost confidence, deem to be the fatal flaws of that philosophy. Reality demands _a priori_ complexity and pluralism. These debates are heated, and draw "high-ranking" clientele, who have dedicated years upon years to it. Look at the history of the edits of the MoQ wikipedia page, and you will see that Dennis Bratland deleted sound criticism (no music videos) based on the argument that it was criticism of a vandal. As if... So one dude "has it out for me" based on his ego and his drive to defend his faulty philosophy from any competition or criticism, and wikipedia bans me for life (endorsing him _de facto_). The democratic ideals of wikipedia are looking suspect; you might want to consider Howison very carefully (he is your metaphysical "broadway" here). In conclusion, I have made abiding contributions to Wikipedia. And the only place where I have been accused of misbehavior is in the little "inbred" philosophy area. If it is wikipedia's estimation that "music videos" when inserted into pages is generally vandalism, still, and like all of life, this particular case deserves to be adjudicated on its own particular merits. Howison is my dog; and I'd never do anything to vandalize him. (Similarly for "Quality".) Please reinstate my privilege for editing (I don't persist fighting for my suggestions ad nauseum; I merely made a suggestion and defended it once; then I let it go. That is, this block didn't hinder; I had already swallowed the bitter "Bratland" pill). Sincerely, Tim Rappl P.S. read Howison and tell me that my suggestions are not topical and complimentary. Nightskate (talk) 6:37 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Does not address reason for block. You may also want to read WP:NOTTHEM and WP:TLDR before filing a new appeal. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nightskate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yunshui, perhaps I get it: encyclopedias are "square". Even where they must be "round", they must be "square".? And while perhaps Wikipedia could entertain the idea of "square" pages *and* "round" pages in the future, now it is only "square". "Round" is "vandalism". Count me "square".? Nightskate (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. Please do not use the unblock template to carry on a conversation with another editor. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nightskate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

unblock reviewer(s), please forgive my prior address to name, I just figured.... My previous *was* an unblock request, "?". For emphasis here, "please?". You will not see me editing anytime soon, but still, I feel I should remain a member of the privileged class of wikipedia editors in case I should have a ("square") contribution worth making. I have provided service in the past which continues to be valued by the community. Sincerely, Tim.Nightskate (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This makes no sense whatsoever. Toddst1 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nightskate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been accused of, and ostensibly blocked for, vandalism. All of my efforts have been good faith/e efforts to improve a page. Which, according to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism) suggests "Careful consideration may be required...". My talk page includes a few "prior/previous" attempts to earn an unblock. It seems that my most recent was rejected because this little history was not considered. I point the reviewer to it. At worst my good faith/e efforts are "detrimental". Even then I have (and already had by the time I was blocked) relented, as a quick review of the bottom of my talk page will show. Exasperatedly, Tim. P.S. this is an unblock request.Nightskate (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the edits you made just before being blocked. Either you are lying about deliberately vandalizing or you are grossly incompetent and actually thought you were helping. Either way it appears it would be ill-advised to unblock you or to you continue allowing you to appeal in this manner. You may use WP:UTRS or email WP:BASC if you wish to appeal further. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

January 2014

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to Talk:Pirsig's metaphysics of Quality, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Helpline (for my child)?

(pardon, absent-mindedly put this in "THE WRONG" place)

So, I get this P. fellow. But I have a child who is under some manner of false spell in him. And $\he won't hear me. Does anyone know where I might find him some ("external") help?

Jesus' crucifixion versus Pirsig's anti-christ+ing.

Heed "the knife".

Pirsig never quit trinitarianism (see to expand the excerpts just a bit), only lied and backed his lies. There is still the "absorber", AND the "not pass on" er. And "the knife". And the unknown "every last bit of it". But to "[not pass on] is another kind of pollution". (Omnicide.)

=x="my kingdom is not of [his world]".

Blueprints within blueprints: =x="those who live by the sword die by the sword".

Pirsig aims to knife You relentlessly.

Jesus aim's to defend unto death Your "Heavenly" Reign(overDeath&Hell)dom.

the turtle"lessly" cannot stand but within the tortoise of "relentment".

Wikipedia, when the page itself cannot be anything but "tried"vandalism, can You not label it a Vandal-page? Does it surprise that a boy who claims to have solved X?, (in "Quality"), might take unprecedented resources to adjudicate?

Furthermore, by his own standards, we are oblivious here. If his ideal were True, his assertion that it is innately vital, without need of "foreign mediation": would it not NEED MUST BE abundantly evident? Wouldn't the evidence for his "Quality = Morality (= every last bit of "it")" be ubiquitous.

In deed, I find such widespread acceptance. Of the spirit of gangster rap, has bloomed a folk dreamcometrue in the Living Logos' genre of music video poesy. It is the relentlessness of those under the Phaedrus' '8skumbrelleton' who refuse their choicest offspring.

Pirsig is a recluse. And no king. Inordinately relentless. Whatevv.

But he won't stand the austerity of his grandiosity himself. Calls it "moral" that he interferes so little.

=x="to whom much is given, much is required".

Fail.F!

You can see his posse, and in something of one of them lighted and super magnified powderroom mirrors. At the "tried" "forbidden" discussion sites. Blind guides. Hateful of both the forest and the trees. Hypocrites. "Real as rocks and trees" $trength. For whom all "trength" will ash/e under recourse of self-blazery.

Wikipedia, to endorse the curse at the expense of the medicine, You could see, is a might'fine "good" work only if Quality is ultimately heinous.

Do not harass the firstfruits of my children.

It is impossible that anyone should come without a gift to the alter not made by human hands.

Is there no one with authority of "2nd opinion" over P.Bratland?

Again, what the "MOQ" is "underneath it all", is i'deal pseudomnicidal-via-relentlesshypocrisy Q-"It's [how] my demons hide"-knifery.

=x="In a large household there are vessels not only of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for lofty and others for humble use. If anyone cleanses himself of these things, he will be a vessel for lofty use,"-2 Timothy 2:20+.

Have You read Pirsig?

To ask "Touchdown?" vis-a-vis this link (and my recent front page contribution, which has stood the test of Your time): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rp-discuss/AYPMG4v1UD8 with nothing more, on a talk page, is vandalism too? Poor children.Nightskate (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)