User talk:Clossius

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. You can use the Show preview button before you save, to make sure your edits do what you intended.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Some time when you're bored, you can read through our policies and guidelines. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 08:11, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vera Rubin discovered evidence for 'dark matter' decades ago

I was reacting to the 'Did you know' notation which incorrectly attributed the discovery of dark matter only to Einasto, when Vera Rubin did the work decades ago in the midst of great incredulity. It is just to share credit with Einasto, but it is incorrect for the 'Did you know' notation to grant entire credit when she and Fritz Zwicky blazed the trail decades ago. Ancheta Wis 20:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) But because I didn't want to mess up 'Did You Know' with a small detail, which, after all is designed to entice new people into Wikipedia, I reasoned that a curious person could just click on Einasto, as you did. So my scheme worked. And Einasto would be happy to share the credit with a giant, which Vera Rubin indeed is. It is again unjust that such a quiet scientist like Rubin would be ignored, in this age of women's rights. Notice again the inadequate article on Zwicky.

Her work on galactic rotation was not attributed either in that article or in the dark matter article, so where do we start ... I chose to start with a glaring injustice in Did You Know.

Added link in the galactic rotation article. You are free to delete her listing under Einasto, if you wish, of course.Ancheta Wis 22:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Imperial Germans

Am not less impressed, but somewhat intrigued. Why no simple redirect from Reichsdeutsche to Imperial Germans?
--Ruhrjung 18:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because there is a Discussion Page attached to the Reichsdeutsche page, and I read somewhere that it is "bad form" to delete or move or redirect pages with discussion, and I am certainly nobody who would try to "take along" the discussion. Hence I thought that this way of indirect referral would solve the problem. Clossius 19:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see! (I ponder to do it anyway, but it's no hurry!) --Ruhrjung 20:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seems to be done now, but at least not by myself. :-) You know, one of the most interesting experiences on wiki for me is that because of the group dynamics, one has to be much more careful with what one says or does than one has to be when writing scholarly articles for journals or "classic" encyclopedias, although those are signed and credited to one's name. So, anonymity and the wiki system makes one not more bold, but less so. Clossius 06:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's well put.
--Ruhrjung 07:20, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Plato's Republic

If you are a classicist can you check out Talk:Republic start in the archived section and check out Greek Philosophies on Republic and its talk page and need help at the Wikipedia:Policy thinktank at Wikipedia:Revisionism.WHEELER 17:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow, what a discussion there! I'm not a classicist, but I deal with Greek Philosophy (and political philosophy) quite a bit. The problem is, to get into this Republic discussion (this is what happens if one gives the Politeia that name!) would require the same effort as a full scholarly paper (and I just finished one on Xenophanes and am a bit exhausted). What is true is that this is a Classics discussion that can only orient itself towards the Greek text, not any translation, not even by Jowett (a great man indeed, but really, not quite a Jaeger! ;-)) Clossius 20:52, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Estonian?

Hello, Clossius. You are not by chance an Estonian are you?

No, by chance I am actually not (quite), but I'm interested in EE subecjt matters. Clossius 12:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Law and Economics

I see you reverted my change to the link in Wilhelm Lexis as this is a standard name. I've tried to apply my change in a compromise manner, as all I want is for the link to work, but the real issue might be the Law and economics article; perhaps it should be moved to Law and Economics? There are many articles linking to it in its current case. I'm not an expert in this area; if you think this would be more appropriate capitalisation, I suggest you move the page and revert my change to Wilhelm Lexis again.--gadfium 00:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The issue is a bit debated even within the scholarly community dealing with the issue. The problem, I think, is that for many, the capitalization/decapitalization issue is somehow ideological, and so there is a problem here. Usually, L&E experts are wary that "law and economics" means "the legal discipline, and the field of economics as well", whereas "Law and Economics", or even better "Law & Economics" (which I prefer also), signalizes that this is a specific scholarly method or, better, approach (economic analysis of the law, broadly understood). But I don't care for the issue strongly enough to get into the issue of the (highly problematic) L&E article, so I won't revert anything again and just let it go. Clossius 08:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Max Weber

I will be putting ol' Max on Featured candidate soon, after 2 peer reviews I think he is ready for big time. Since you have helped before, I'd appreciate any last checks you could give the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

William V. Spanos

Hello Clossius, I would like to know your opinion about William V. Spanos, is he a notable enough scholar to have an article about him in Wikipedia? He has published few papers about Heidegger, Arendt, Derrida, etc. so I venture a guess you might have heard of him. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Spanos. Cordially, jni 10:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi jni, I'm afraid that I have to reply with the weasel answer that "the name rings a bell" but that I could not have placed the name, and that I'm not familiar with any of his work from my own dealings with the Heidegger, Arendt etc. discourse. From his website, he seems to be a "postmodernism-conservative". :-) But I must say - and that has to do with my own view of Wikipedia - that that I see no reason on earth why he should be deleted; he's certainly more important than your arverage college professor (just 12 hits on Google Scholar, but many more on Google itself), and the presses and substance matter of his pieces are solid enough. Of course, the article is a stub and is missing especially the key contributions and merits of Spanos, but this is not a "vanity piece" (and if it were, I wouldn't care either; I think vanity is fine for those who have at least a bit of a reason to be vain :-)). Clossius 07:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I too wouldn't have minded if Prof. Spanos had written this article by himself, even with slight vanity it would probably have been more insightful than what we currently have. Can't fault the person who nominated this for deletion though, the first version was almost totally incoherent and without context. Nowadays so much total garbage gets posted to Wikipedia making it hard to spot the few notable entries among the chaff. jni 15:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania!

Hi Clossius,

We could use some Wikimania help, particularly with coordinating travel plans, flights and hotels, and getting information about the city together to hand out to attendees. +sj + 05:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Adolph Wagner

Hi, Clossius

I didn't actually move the article from Adolph Wagner to Adolf Wagner. I just noticed that there were two articles for this person, and they needed to be merged, with a redirect from one to the other. If you feel the article belongs under "Adolph", you are quite free to move it and you have the power to do so. To help you do this, I have deleted the redirect, and all you need to do is to move the article from Adolf Wagner to Adolph Wagner. You can then create a new article on the other Adolf Wagner to avoid future confusion. Deb 16:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I wonder who duplicated the Adolph Wagner article under the wrong heading. I will do so, not because of a feeling, but because it's not accurate to list him under another person's name.

Professor

I've made the change in the article Professor which you reverted. Sorry, but your opionion is just plainely wrong. I'm affiliated with a german university (however not as a professor) and the title Professor is not a life long title but related to the work position. This is also explained in the corresponding article in the german wikipedia de:Professor which i referenced in my change.

I will cite: "Professor (von lat. profiteri, 'öffentlich bekennen, vortragen') ist die Berufsbezeichnung (bzw. Dienstbezeichnung) eines in der Regel beamteten Lehrers an einer Hochschule (auch: Hochschullehrer)."

-> Professor [...] is the work title [...] of a teacher at a university.

Also: "Im Fall von Ehrenprofessuren und außerplanmäßigen Professuren handelt es sich um einen Titel (Titularprofessur)."

-> In the case of honorary professors and außerplanmäßig (outside of the regular plan) professors it is a title".

Even more: "Der Unterschied besteht vor allem darin, dass der Titel erhalten bleibt, auch wenn der Beruf nicht mehr ausgeübt wird (man kann ihn aber aberkennen oder niederlegen), während die Berufs- oder Dienstbezeichnung bei Aufgabe der Tätigkeit nicht mehr weiter besteht (eine Ausnahme bildet allerdings die Emeritierung oder Pensionierung)."

-> The main difference is that the title will still remain after the job is no longer fullfilled (it is however possible to return it or have it rejected), while the work title will not remain any longer after the end of the job entitlement (with an exception beeing the retirement or emeritus).

This makes it absolutely clear that in the vast majority of german Professors the term "Professor" is not a title but a work position. This is also reflected in the fact that unlike the title 'Dr.' (Ph.D.) the term 'Professor' can NOT be added to the name for example in the passport or identity card. I'm not sure where you got your wrong opionion from, but sorry, it is wrong. Just trust the german wikipedia article. -- de:Benutzer:Kju 13:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The German wikipedia, where I am also active, is plainly wrong there, but I did not have the time to improve it there. It may well be that you think you are right, but factually you are not. It is by now so that even if you are Ordinarius or Extraordinarius (C4 or C3, by now mostly W3 or W2) and you quit, you may retain legally the title Professor. This was debatable with the "Hessenprofessoren" of the 1970s, C2 and so on, but by now it is absolutely clear that this is so. The German law and usage are very clear here; we have respective laws, court decisions of the respective courts, approvals by the ministries, and of course comments in the respective Wissenschaftsrechts-commentaries, handbooks, the recommendations etc. by Wissenschaftsrat, KMK and the like. Look at the entry you changed - I do not say that Professor is a title, indeed it hardly is in Germany, but that it also has a title function that is separate from the position. Yes, it is not legally a title like the Dr., in that it does not get into your ID cards etc., but it is a title in the sense that you retain it legally (and there are severe penalties if you use titles you are not en-itled to in Germany) even if you quit. As regards the German article, es ist ja oft so, daß wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter das nicht so genau wissen, and even professorial colleagues are not always sure of the herrschende Meinung in Rechtsprechung und Literatur. I should say that this is not a personal issue for me (I can tell you outside of wiki why not), and I find this even odd and regrettable - once you quit being a Professor, you should not retain the title, i.m.h.o., but my opinion is not what matters - nor is yours. I'll revert the article again; if you have a problem with that, we can either do arbitration right away, or we can start citing the respective literature (not the German wiki, please), which admittedly would be a bit tedious (and not readily understandable for the readership here), but if it has to be... Clossius 18:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Tallinn

Hello, I noticed your today's disparaging comments about a Russian church. Can you tell me - do you find this church or this any better, or do you dislike all colourful and extravagant architecture in principle? Just curious, Ghirla | talk 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not like the Romanov revival style of the turn-of-the century in general (with exceptions), and I don't think the ANC is particularly beautiful as such - it can be in a certain light, from certain perspectives, etc. But my point in this discussion was not disparaging, au contraire - I think the ANC is the most "real" church in Tallinn by now (at least in the Toompea/Vanalinn area), because it is actually used as a church; it is welcoming to foreigners, and people of all classes and generations go there to pray and worship. I think that is what matters. I do, in principle, like Russian Orthodox (and Greek Orthodox) churches, though not the ones you mentioned (I like extravagant architecture, but not necessarily colorful). But that is really a non-wiki matter of taste; I think ANC was indeed intended as "show architecture". Even that "works" sometimes, but in this case, what is fascinating to me is that was primarily meant as a political symbol has turned into a real church. Clossius 18:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for detailed explanation. You may want to check my article on Russian architecture, by the way. --Ghirla | talk 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Erik S. Reinert

I'm the press contact for no.wikipedia, and Mr. Reinert found my name and contacted me about some vandalism on his bio. The bio was written by one of his students, and he is reluctant to edit an article about himself. I noticed that you've reverted vandalism in the article before, so I thought I'd let you know what's going on. Someone is trying to bring personal issues into this article. Reinert has documentation to support his claim that falsehoods have been inserted, which he'll be sending to me later today. I'll keep it on my watchlist, but since you've already looked after it I also hope that you'll continute to keep an eye out for any trouble. Cnyborg 12:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Doing what I can, but I really hope this will stop some time soon. This guy and his sockpuppets are really slanderous and libelous, and it's well beyond what should happen on wikipedia. Just saw it has happened again. Clossius 16:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Gustav von Ewers

Could I trouble you for a source for this article? not apparently on German Wikipedia. Best wishes, Staffelde 19:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean to insert scholarly (printed) sources? Clossius 16:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant only to ask you to identify whatever source it was you had used to write the article. Best, Staffelde 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The usual biographical literature of course - the standard German, Russaian, and Estonian histories of the University of Tartu, the essay on his Chair (which has a good biosketch with the data and evaluation of his work), and there is a big recent biography by an Estonian scholar with a summary in German. Clossius 06:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for adding them. Best, Staffelde 13:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Xenophanes / Monotheism

(discussion moved to Talk:Xenophanes)

Your book

Hello, I've been impressed with your edits and was curious about your "real-world" publications. Can you direct me to some? I understand if you would rather remain anonymous, but on the other hand I would be interested in reading your work. -Halidecyphon 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, many thanks. :-) You can write me an e-mail and we can discuss that. Unfortunately (but systemically), this is not a subject best discussed here. Clossius 06:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Conflict over Conflict Thesis

Hello, Clossius. I hope you will believe that I am making a serious effort to be NPOV on Conflict thesis and Andrew Dickson White. I am not sure what you see as the problem, so you are going to have to explain it more if you want me to address it. You seem to have the feeling that there must be some historians who would regard White's book as decent history, if a little dated. What would it take to assure you that it is not? Maestlin 08:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I know of any serious historian of science today who judges the historical contribution of scholars according to the standards of today, i.e. of what today is believed to be correct. It's hardly a matter of feeling to say that in its time, White's was indeed decent history - nor that it was and (actually to my own surprise) is a book that is actually read. I think that's also reflected in the contemporary literature both on White and on the history of science. Clossius 10:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Wikisource

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Psychology Wiki

The Logo for the Psychology Wiki.

Hi Clossius,

I noticed that you are interested in contributing to a community with fellow academics, and thought you might be interested in this project which I am involved in, The Psychology Wiki.

I won't say too much, as I'd like you to judge it for yourself, but you should find that it is different from Wikipedia, because approximately 90% of our contributors so far are psychologists, academics, or students and trainees.

Its hosted by a company called Wikia, which was founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. There are Google Ads on the site, but we dont make money from the project, they're just to pay for the bandwidth, storage and technical support that Wikia give us.

Have a look and see what you think

Mostly Zen 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. This looks like a very cool prpject - exactly the direction Wikipedia ought to be going -, and I've signed up and will be happy to see how the project is going (and will contribute to that myself of course :-)). Clossius 07:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)