User talk:Anthony Krupp

Welcome!

Hello, Anthony Krupp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Greetings. I see, thanks for the info, and thanks for wanting to help, i appreciate it. Again welcome to Wikipedia. Cheers. --Spahbod 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parsi and The Wrong Version

You're welcome. I would like to say I'm sorry for my butting in on an issue totally unrelated to myself or my own edits, as some might consider it bench-modding, but since I often try to do casual mediation on my own as a non-administrator, I feel an acute sympathy for people like Brenneman. In your case, you seem to be trying to be neutral, but the sheer number of cases where an admin attempts dispute resolution only to get blasted for their supposed POV on a subject they literally know nothing about is frightening. Brenneman is simply trying to follow established practice, but it only works if everyone cooperates. Otherwise, you start getting into Requests for Comment, mediation cabal, the Arbitration committee, harsh feelings on all sides and sometimes even bans... all over the ethnic identity of some West Asian religious group the average editor probably neither knows nor cares about.

Also, glad to see you have a sense a humour about this. If you liked that, you should probably read WP:LAME as well, it's a list of the dumbest edit wars ever and a great example of how not to act. Would you believe someone decided to become a wikimartyr over whether to describe "." as a period or full stop? --tjstrf 18:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second the appreciation for your input. A small thing: Try not to put your comment in the midst of someone else's, but instead right after. Otherwise, is someone responds to your response and so on, the initial bit can be set adrift from their signature.
brenneman ^{L} 06:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! just fixed that; thanks for catching it.Anthony Krupp 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your citations at List of German-language philosophers

Hello, I see you're adding references from MacMillan - which is great - but you shouldn't use the  since no one can see them. Instead use <ref>CITATION HERE</ref> as stated in WP:CITE. I already cleaned up most of your previous citations. Anyway, happy editing. Keep up the excellent work!Non-vandal 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, and for following after me and cleaning up my mess! We're actually not a bad team for editing this list, are we?Anthony Krupp 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to let you know I've switched the citation method (see the talk page's history). Instead of <ref>CITATION HERE</ref> use {{fn|M}} for 2nd ed of 2006 and {{fn|a}} for the one published in 1973 for all MacMillan references you find for names. This should make citing all the easier since you don't have to provide so much information and do a whole lot of typing.Non-vandal 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made an edit explicating: "we'll need to switch to Metzler really soon, no?" Could you explain "Metzler" a little further?Non-vandal 21:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the Metzler Philosophen-Lexikon (1995) (ISBN 3-476-1428-2), as per criterion #1.Anthony Krupp 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks for that. I might need to expand the Sources list, so I need to know major sources that will be heavily referenced in the future.Non-vandal 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Your contribution of List_of_German-language_philosophers Amerindianarts 15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parsi

Greetings, regarding your cut of the word persian from the infobox. Why would we cut away thousands of years of persian history the Parsis had, because a user like fullstop think so. My friend like i mentioned in the parsi talk the encyclopedia Britannnica article about the parsis which fullstop himself provided says this: The Parsis, whose name means “Persians,” are descended from Persian Zoroastrians who emigrated to India to avoid religious persecution by the Muslims. Of cource they are related to the Persians, the word itself means Persian, i also think you should change the head of the article from: the people who emigrated to india to: the persians who emigrated to india. I know you don't want it to get more messed up than it is, but he can't argue with facts and sources, if he refuses to cooperate he will be blocked. We don't have to satisfy his needs to change the article as he wants it. --Spahbod ☼ 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche contra Wagner

Thanks for improving the Nietzsche contra Wagner article. I feel it is still missing some essential notes on the totality of the essay, though. I hope for your input. -Bordello 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

Request granted; see below section struck through.

On Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline (section 10), you state that I have done four things: (1) "You are skipping the most important step of the process of creating guidelines: that of building consensus." (2) "You are trying to apply the process in reverse: requiring the building of consensus to remove the changes you've made to the guideline page." (3) "...you keep going straight to the guideline page with your changes" and (4) "you keep violating WP:POV." You also claim that "[y]our actions will not survive the scrutiny of several administrators." Given that I have made one edit to the guideline page, I am especially unsure what to do with your third claim that I "keep going straight to the guideline page." And I am sure that several administrators might also have that question.

Please refer to evidence for your claims, so that I may better understand them. You may do so here, on my talk page, or if you wish, on the List guideline talk page. I have replied to you here, rather than on the List guideline talk page, because this issue is not relevant to the work of discussing list guidelines. I am still willing to assume good faith in your case, but am perplexed by your accusations. Waiting, --Anthony Krupp 04:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mindslip. A typo. And my apologies if I inadvertantly offended you in so doing. I've corrected the name to whom the post is directed. Thanks for pointing out my error. --Polar Deluge 05:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Deluge's post-apology posting ("Out of Curiosity")

I noticed you removed one of the paragraphs in question on the list guideline page. My question is, knowing that consensus has yet to be reached concerning any of them, why did you not remove the others? I too am willing to assume good faith in your actions, but I am perplexed by your failure to fully support the concensus-building process in this circumstance. The appropriate thing to have done was to remove the items and let the consensus-building process proceed entirely on the talk page. I am curious why you did not feel it was your responsibility to do so. Waitin', --Polar Deluge 05:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left the other paragraphs for two reasons. One, although you had removed them, another user reverted, pointing out that they can stay if disputed. I don't know if that's proper or not, but didn't want to act boldly not knowing the best thing to do. And two, since I regard the section in question as useful, I would certainly not be inclined to remove them anyway. Of course I would do so, if I were sure of the procedure. But looking over the talk page and rereading the sections, I noticed two things: (1) the identitarian paragraph was awful for several reasons, including ones you had articulated, and therefore I felt justified in removing it entirely (though it is still legible on the Talk page, in case anyone wants to plea for its existence), and (2) the remaining paragraphs seemed to me still a good idea in principle, but perhaps in need of trimming. Hence the proposals for new wording on the Talk page.

In short, then, I removed one contested paragraph, and made positive suggestions to improve two others. I hope that clarifies things. Best,--Anthony Krupp 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at the top of the page are quite clear: {{guideline}}

Therefore, I'm perplexed how you could be unsure of the procedure. --Polar Deluge 06:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Polar Deluge's talk page.--Anthony Krupp 13:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant

Your input is desired regarding the third paragraph of the "Popular Misconceptions" section at Immanuel Kant. Amerindianarts 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a fourth voice would be quite welcome. Li3crmp 20:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the initial request is 'does the third paragraph of Popular misconceptions state that it is a popular misconception that Kant was unreadable" and is this verifiable? Support for the claim that he is unreadable references Herder and Hamann's reference to the German text. Support for the popular misconception is that it common among students that he isn't (talk page). In my experience this is quite the contrary of the opinion of students and professors. Amerindianarts 20:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk page for Immanuel Kant.--Anthony Krupp 20:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinoza1111's misogynist language and subsequent defense thereof

On the talk page for Immanuel Kant, User:Spinoza1111 has made several comments that betray misogyny. Specifically referring to another male user 'getting his pantyhose in a tangle' and 'being on the rag'. I can't believe that such language is tolerated here, though I could be wrong. My question: is this a case of this user being a jerk, and I should just ignore it, or is he acting in a manner that requires an intervention, like a civility warning or something. Thanks for any advice you might have.

If you haven't already, you should probably familiarize yourself with the no personal attacks policy; couldn't hurt to let other editors know about it, too. If this sort of behavior continues, just be polite yourself, and consider posting to WP:PAIN for admin attention (though, if you yourself are also doing some name-calling, be aware that your posts will also be looked at). Hope that helps. Good luck. :) Luna Santin 23:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to reduce the level of attacks you find personal and mysogynist, Anthony, but please note that these responses were exclusively directed at one specific attack from one specific user. The "mysogyny" you decry was at least in part an attempt to defuse through humor, so I do request that you not get your pantyhose in too much of a tangle, while I will look to my own nylons and try, like Caliban, to seek for grace hereafter.

My goal in Influence is simple: to avoid confusing the tyro who reads repeatedly about the way in which, in philosophy, tweedledum boldly went where no man had ever gone before and awoke Humanity from its dogmatic slumber...only to find that tweedledee totally "refuted" him thereafter.

We need to be specific, in Influence, about the way in which Kant changed philosophy.

It is a mistake to characterise any epoch of philosophy as an age of dogmatism characterised by an absence of self-criticism. Such ages existed (Merovingian France comes to mind) but they are characterized by an absence of people we call philosophers.Spinoza1111 03:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Krupp, with all due respect, I think you're making a common mistake I see in academia: to assume that individual phrases, taken out of context and tone, can be used to make conclusions about something so complicated as a mysogynistic personality. Here, academia, in a laudable desire to be politically correct, coupled with an equally laudable desire to be procedurally fair, becomes in a less laudable fashion a bureaucratic machine, and the bureaucratic machine can't be sensitive to context and tone, such as in the attack on an individual for using the adjective "niggardly" because of an accident in sound.

I was confronted by a difficult individual who as usual was airing what seemed to be a cold anger, and I have many years of experience in dealing with such online situations. Here my strategy was humorously using the very idea that a user, probably male, might be wearing pantyhouse or in menopause and by so doing I invited him into the men's hut of men confident enough in themselves to use such "mysogynist" language. I assumed to his credit that he could parse the tone, as it were, assuming not the worst but the best about an individual.

In fine, I am not a jerk and I don't like speaking to the jerk in others. I was instead concerned that, first of all, Kant's style isn't addressed and secondly that it is jejune to say that before any philosopher in the canon except perhaps Heraclitus there were no philosophers (criticism and self-criticism being definitional of philosophy as opposed to haruspication).

This as I have said leads to the false perception of philosophy as being as useful in the so-called real world as one left tit, if you'll forgive the simile.Spinoza1111 04:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Butler edit warrior

Dude, stop going through all my pages and editing them just because I wrote them. I am not a vandal. On the Foucault page, you deleted stuff that IS sourced--had you read the talk page, you would have seen that, and that that was why it stayed. The problem is that you don't question the morals of the philosophers you study--so one claim might be true, another might not be. I am not a vandal. I am a conservative, and I intend to edit these pages trying to represent a neutral POV--i.e., not a liberal or a Marxist one. What I am is pesky, and I acknowledge that--but I only want people to read the verifiable truth--not just any truth, but objective truth. Everybody's truth. Now, the fact there was an investigation into Foucault's life--they should be told of Chomsky's claim too, that F. was completely amoral. When you present the glossy theory, people don't get that. Please don't cherry pick my pages--you aren't going to find any system of misconduct. My fiercest stuff has been on the Butler page. -Kmaguir1 03:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply left on Kmaguir1's talk page.--Anthony Krupp 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise me how to proceed with the article Judith Butler? See its talk page. One user, User:Kmaguir1, is breaking several wiki-rules of etiquette, above all WP:CONSENSUS and disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. I've tried to work with him and improve some sections he introduced, sections I think should remain in the article, but then he turns around and repeatedly inserts his badly written paragraphs, over and over, and is now using a meatpuppet, User:Truthseekers, to do his bidding as well. Should this now go to an administrator, should we seek arbitration, or should he be blocked for a week to cool off? Thanks for any insight. --Anthony Krupp 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either follow the steps in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, or make a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (the latter especially if a block is in order).--Commander Keane 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that an Admin can take a look here. Thanks!--Anthony Krupp 17:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to place the helpme tag for that, most active admins will regularly visit that page. --pgk^(talk) 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Kmaguir1

I have bocked the user for making sockpuppets and using them abusively. The period is for ten days. He wishes to have messages in French, so I done so(!) The message is that of {{SockmasterProven}}. Let me know if there is anything else. Iolakana|^T 16:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the edit you made was a warning about a page, or he is blanking it, then it counts as vandalism. If it is something about an article, then he is allowed to remove it. Iolakana|^T 18:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that! I was under another impression. Will let him know. Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 23:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new guideline?

I would value your input on a topic I have raised at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Specifically, I have frequently encountered a set of issues on biographies of academics that are somewhat narrower and more specific than for generic "biographies of living persons". I am thinking that it might be time to propose a guideline about this, or maybe just an essay on the topic. But before I try to float that, I'm interested in what you think.

P.S. I reverted Wikipedia:List guideline to Jossi's last version that contained the comments about criteria. I think your proposal on the talk page is perfectly good, and I would not have any broad problem with a change in wording. But I think it is important to retain something on the guideline in the meanwhile. Leaving the issue entirely blank potentially lets (or encourages) readers to miss an important area of concern in the interregnum between versions of the wording. LotLE×talk 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally hear you about the guideline. There's a recent history on the page that explains why that particular guideline is missing from the article: it hadn't reached consensus, so I'm told. That's why I've been trying desperately, recently, to build a better version that will reach consensus, because I think the business about criteria was the best thing on the guideline. I definitely want some version of it back. Will definitely look into your proposal within a day or two. (Real life beckons meanwhile.) Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 11:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the discussion you mention, but I can bet in advance that the not-cosensus means "Francis Schonken doesn't like it". He's been enormously hostile to the idea of cautioning editors about using criteria for lists since Jossi and I first started WP:LISTV. I haven't the foggiest idea why, and none of his stated concerns make the slightest sense to me. But it's been a longstanding thing, about which he's tried to disrupt work. LotLE×talk 14:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well, from my own experience, users Francis Schonken and PolarDeluge have been the most conservative regarding what they perceive to be listcreep. In my experience, I've found that their objections -- when I've understood them; I know that Schonken is Swiss, so there may be a language barrier with which I can greatly empathize, having tried to edit some on the German wikipedia myself -- contained some good cautionary points. Actually, my current proposal on WP:LIST takes several of their concerns into consideration, and I do think it's a much better guideline than what is currently in place, due to my thinking about their objections. So I suppose I remain cautiously optimistic. But I hear what you're saying, and it sounds like you have more battle scars than I do. Complete empathy. All of this said, I will be prepared for arbitration, should it prove necessary. That is, if it appears to me (it does not yet) that a particular user is being an obstructionist for no good reason, then of course I'll regard them as uninterested in WP:CONSENSUS and not worth talking to. We'll see who falls into what category.--Anthony Krupp 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!

Thanks for the nuetral opinions and help you've offered. -Shazbot85 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email please! -Shazbot85 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, hopefully that user will simply leave me in peace. -Shazbot85 15:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kmaguir1 AfD's

Can I urge your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Martelli and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Yee (second nomination). These were both nominations by Kmaguir1 solely because I had created these biographies. I saw you did vote delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymundo Baltazar, which was nominated with similar intent against Agnamarasi... I don't have much opinion on that bio (but I did feel "weak keep" was justified". However, Yee and Martelli I definitely think are notable. LotLE×talk 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry if I became an inadvertent meat puppet. D'oh! While I know we are supposed to AGF until it is clear there is no reason to do so, I find your interpretation of his motivations convincing.--Anthony Krupp 21:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean your vote at the Baltazar AfD? I think that will get deleted, with almost all the voters uninvolved in the whole Kmaguir1 thing. I still believe my "weak keep", but I'm pretty generous on bios... and even then, the emphasis is on "weak". In any case, your votes are all certainly reasonable. That said, it looks like we have some sock/meatpuppetry again... we'll see how it unfolds

Oh, you might take a look at my comments at User talk:Kilo-Lima#Return of the socks. If need be, we can transfer this to administrative pages later. LotLE×talk 05:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver linings

Against all intention, Kmaguir1 has had a very positive effect with his AfD's. I had only barely heard of Raphael Samuel before today; Danny Yee I was obviously familiar with having created the article. But in response to what I think were mean-spirited AfD nominations, I was pushed to greatly expand and improve both articles. In fact, I sort of feel guilty now that I hadn't known more about Samuel, who seems really quite interesting, and not merely "sort-of like E.P.Thompson". LotLE×talk 06:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is why wikipedia seems to work (when it seems to work). I don't know if you're familiar with the early Jewish sense of the term satan, but Kmaguir1 seems to be one. That is, an adversary, one who creates obstacles. Such that the good people can show their strength, and be better than before. Something like that. Examples in Job, of course, and more recently in Goethe's Faust. Mephistophiles refers to himself as the spirit who wills evil and always does good. Anyway, that's how I've come to think of our 'friend.' Greetings,--Anthony Krupp 06:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs) .

This line was, of course, hilarious: Still not seeing notability. There are tons of people who have 13 books out no one's every heard of who do not belong on wikipedia, and tons of people who started an academic journal who are not on here.-Kmaguir1 Though I suppose if you think sufficiently literally, it might be true. An American ton is 2000 lbs. A moderately heavy man might weight 200 lbs, a light woman 100 lbs (not that gender bimorphism is that huge in humans). Let's split the difference, and say one academic weighs 150 lbs. So Kmaguir1 is purporting that we've failed to cover 13 highly-published academics on the English Wikipedia... well, that's one ton, for "tons" I guess it would be 26+ writers. Still, that sounds plausible enough... there are certainly gaps. LotLE×talk 06:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meat puppet?

Acusations abound, that I am some sort of extension of Kmaquir1 because I was involved in some deletion discussions that he was involved in. I didn't even vote the same way as him because I totally disagree in some instances. Anything I can do to stop this crap? -Shazbot85^Talk 07:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I was going to reply but see that Lulu beat me to it. His reply should answer your concerns. Best,--Anthony Krupp 11:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guten Tag

Sie haben gesagt sie sind sehr beschäftigtund können nicht schnell antworten.Ich hoffe sie werden dies hier lesen.Ich wei? dass englisch nicht meine Muttersprache ist aber cih versuche trotzdem Artikel in dieser Sprache zu verbessern weil Wikipedia englisch einfach mehr. Mitglieder hat. User:Ilunga Shibinda

hello

RfC can be useful in some issues. But before going to that I would try WP:3O and then Mediation. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think good faith is an issue. Shazbot85^Talk 07:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're referring to.--Anthony Krupp 20:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could use an unbiased opinion

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pillar of Fire Church.

The creator is starting to get a little hostile, attacking me for proposing the article be deleted for its' lack of citation. He repeatedly refuses to cite where he obtained the information for the article and is starting to insinuate I'm trying to be disruptive or that I'm persecuting another religion (The Pillar of Fire Church is a Christian Church and I too am a Christian, so this is very absurd.) I was wondering if you would provide a NPOV in case there is actually some question to my motives or I am incorrectly nominating this article for some reason. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 03:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hostility seems to be a temptation here. I suppose we can all try to disengage. Anyway: you did the right thing by asking for sources, and hopefully that will now happen. It's interesting: I wasn't aware of this Arminian demonination. It's something I usually encounter in more of my historical research. Anyway: good job on calling for sources. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 20:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bell hooks, etc.

Thanks for your note. I had noticed the rfc on Kmaguir1, and was careful to keep my changes to those that I thought would almost unambiguously improve the bell hooks article. Kmaguirl, whatever his or her failings, is probably right that the article should mention public criticisms of hooks. It took only 30 seconds of literature searches to see that material criticisms have been published and, frankly, given the microscopic circulation of most academic journals and the rather wide exposure given to somebody like David Horowitz, I would not be surprised if more people have heard criticisms of hooks than have ever heard her praised.

I have no interest in the political or ad hominem part of the debate -- are her defenders ideologues? Is kmaguir1 a nutcase? As I said on the talk page, I have no dog in that race. Uucp

Thanks for this comment. I agree that the article should mention notable criticisms, and have tried to participate in keeping a balanced, well-written mention of criticisms.--Anthony Krupp 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, on the same subject, similar sentiments from me. I don't think I will have much to contribute about User:Kmaguir1, but if I feel so moved after looking over Bell hooks, I'll add something to the RfC. --Brianyoumans 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contents marker

Did you add that little appendix for all my requests for third opinion just because I wanted as many third opinions as I could get? I don't see how it was necessary, especially since what I was doing was not only not violating Wikipedia policy, but actually, following it, whereas the RFC, I think that's not following it. I think there's little of substance to the RFC, now more than ever.-Kmaguir1 18:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more editors on bell hooks, the better. I seconded the invitation. Meanwhile, you wrote: "I'm contending with some very difficult Marxists who are attached to her work." To whom were you referring?--Anthony Krupp 20:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kmaguir1

Thanks for letting me know. I've restored the warning. Please keep me posted. I won't join in the RfC, as I don't know anything about this user, but you are of course welcome to make use of this recent incident. Tyrenius 20:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite but I don't know that it would be fair for me to join in. I have not followed his edits at bell hook and don't recall any confrontations with him. I did check out his delete recommendations and found some fairly petty and even vindictive perhaps. He did make a comment on the talk page of Lulu's essay on academic bios which reflect his apparent disregard for consensus, but I should probably abstain for the sake of fairness. Amerindianarts 03:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't derail from the RfC page but...

I am a Christian, I am not a relativist or universalist by any means. I firmly believe the Christian view concerning the Bible is right, thus what you purport about Satan or (a) satan is an alternate view in my eyes, not the correct view. I mean no insult when I say this, and I do understand what you mean and are comming from, I just don't accept it in the least. Best regards Shazbot85^Talk 22:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're a Calvinist, but thanks for adding this note. What I mean to say is that even if you disagree with the function of the satan in Job, you should be capable of understanding that this was my frame of reference in using the term. That is, you should not misunderstand me to have ever said that Kmaguir1 was Lucifer, i.e. Satan with a capital S. Of course you can believe that the satan in Job is identical to the Satan of the NT. I'm simply saying that you can disagree about my understanding of the identity or non-identity of the two, but should not assume that I insulted Kmaguir1 according to your and his understanding of this identity. That's all. Actually, I'm pretty sure you 'get it.'

I really did have this in mind: in Hebrew, I'm told, the term satan is always accompanied with an indefinite or definite article, since the term is the name for a job, that of prosecutor or adversary, much like Christ was once the name for another job, that of redeemer. In early Christianity, both job names became the proper names Satan and Christ.

Well, as long as we're not derailing from the RfC page, I'd be interested in your take on one thing. As far as I can make sense of such things, the orthodox Christian view (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist) of Satan is that he fell early on and has been in Hell ever since. Is this right? If so, I was wondering how you make sense of the book of Job, where we learn that the satan waltzed into Heaven along with the other sons of light, and had a fairly friendly debate with God about Job, before they both bet on his faith. I'm not trying to convince you of anything: I'm legitimately interested in knowing how a Calvinist would explain this. I've been writing a bit about 17th and 18th century Calvinists and Jansenists in the book I'm completing, and have been more interested in discussions of infant baptism than anything else, but questions of heaven and hell are of course central to these discussions. Anyway, I'd appreciate any light you can throw on this. Best,--Anthony Krupp 22:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a bit. I'll try to compile the most complete answer I can manage from a Calvinist perspective to provide a sufficient answer. Best regards Shazbot85^Talk 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

If you would like to throw your two cents in on what I consider to be an obvious delete, you can find the AfD discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NATO helmet. Shazbot85^Talk 15:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet Expertise Needed

I suspect the employment of either a sock puppet or a meatpuppet in the AfD for the Bloodclan Wikipedia page. The creating user has done little to defend his article and the only "keep" material present in the article is from him, and user:68.83.115.19. That IP user has only made edits to that AfD page and I know how rare it is for new, annonymous users to find their way to vote in an AfD article. I was wondering if you could provide any help on if it could be a possible sock puppet of the author of the Bloodclan page, User:Blake911. Any help is appreciated. Best regards, Shazbot85^Talk 07:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It won't matter to the AfD, I think, since IP contribs are usually ignored. Still, you can state something on the AfD page about the IP account, and otherwise you should read this: Wp:sockpuppet. It explains there where to post an inquiry and how to tag a suspected puppet. Hope that helps! -Anthony Krupp 13:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! Shazbot85^Talk 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird deletionist

Can I ask you to opine at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia. This is a really useful essay that one editor has developed a strange desire to destroy. LotLE×talk 18:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed the train. Was going to vote keep, it calls itself an essay, what's the problem. Let me know if anything else strange happens to it, and I'll be quicker next time.--Anthony Krupp 18:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leibniz edits

Can't you see that your last version preserves vandalism (look at the right box title - wrong colour, vandalism by 70.49.221.22 - unnecessary section renaming and digit changing)? If you want to incorporate your edit please remove vandalism. 212.199.22.204 21:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Opera it looks OK, horrible with IE6 - I would prefer to keep the version that looks OK in both browsers. On second thought, maybe the change of colour was not an act of vandalism, still... 212.199.22.204 21:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make any changes you feel are constructive. All I asked was that you identify what version you're reverting to when you revert. Also, you might be a bit free with use of the term vandalism. Please remember to assume good faith and all that. But my main concern was being able to identify a version. Best, --Anthony Krupp 02:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct RfC

Might it be a good time to discuss ways that the conduct RfC might be withdrawn?-Kmaguir1 05:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that NSU vandal

Nice save, much appreciation from a fellow editor of the Nova entry. It's still really rough, but it'll get there. Thanks again. Scienter 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing off

Why don't you look after Immanuel and the List of German Language Philosophers? The latter doesn't have much activity and seems to be a duplicate of another list. Signing out Amerindianarts 06:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll certainly keep my occasional eye on both. But am really busy in real life, esp. with Descartes, Spinoza, Locke these days, so substantive revision of Kant from me will have to wait a few years. Are you signing off for good or just taking a break? -Anthony Krupp 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will check back from time to time, like today, to make sure my User page is not vandalized (if only Wiki would "noindex" it). I don't have time otherwise, especially between Sept.-May. I spend too much time on talk pages warding off trolls and defending positions. I also have a daughter in pre-med who has called me on my involvement at Wiki. Her professors at Purdue are adament about not using Wiki. Especially her philosophy prof, ergo, she doesn't understand why I got involved. She's right. If you write an article at the college level criticisms of unreadability surface. I have contributed articles at Wiki only to find that they compete in the search engines with similar articles at my websites, and ultimately are reflected on other mirror sites. I no longer have anything to offer. Good luck. Amerindianarts 20:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit vandalizing...

...Miami Hurricanes football. It is a fact that Miami holds a 29-21 edge in the all-time series against Florida State. If you do it again, you will be reported.-PassionoftheDamon 07:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need for namecalling? Editing vs. vandalizing Miami Hurricanes football: Removing what looks to me like a peacock phrase ("all-time") is called editing, not vandalizing. I explained the change and have yet to receive a civil counter-reply. Instead, you resort to name-calling and threats. Of course the score is 29-21. My question is why you are calling this "the all-time advantage." It sounds like boosterism. Is there some other reason? Explain that, and I'll drop that particular edit. And you can use the article talk page to do so, which is how editing on wikipedia works. You might familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies on assuming good faith, as well as on peacock terms. Have a nice day. --Anthony Krupp 13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take a look at the definition of "namecalling," as I have yet to call you a name. It also wouldn't be a bad idea if you familiarized yourself with the concept of peacock terms. Referring to a 29-21 advantage in the all-time series between Miami and Florida State is hardly a peacock phrase. Perhaps you're new to the sports world, but the historical series between two teams is typically called the all-time series, and the team that holds the edge holds the "all-time advantage" [1] [2] [3] [4][5] You've been warned. If you persist in vandalizing the page, you will be reported.-PassionoftheDamon 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You used a verb (vandalizing) rather than a noun (vandal), but you still failed to assume good faith. Your explanation that a historical series is typically called the all-time series completely satisfies me. Thanks for (finally) explaining that. Your rude statement ("You've been warned") is uncalled for, given that I specifically asked you to please explain the term. Your threat is empty, since I have never vandalized that page. People who throw around terms as loosely as you do tend not to fare well here. Good luck with that. -Anthony Krupp 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized the page, I called you on it, that's the end of it. Vandalism is very much not appreciated here at Wikipedia. Good luck with that going forward.-PassionoftheDamon 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of vandalism is wrong. Ask anyone.-Anthony Krupp 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We both know you vandalized the page and that you're a bad faith editor, offering such "good faith" edit summaries as "b.s" and "hardly called for." You're not fooling anyone. If you expect to have a productive Wiki career, you'd be wise to change your ways.-PassionoftheDamon 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reasonable who bothers to look at the edits will realize I made a good faith but mistaken attempt to edit the page. That reasonable person will also see that I asked for information about the edit, and after receiving it, left it alone. And my editing history speaks for itself. I have lost interest in your chest-thumping, and will no longer respond to your overtures. I trust we'll both go back to just working to improve wikipedia. Ciao. -Anthony Krupp 04:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We both know otherwise.-PassionoftheDamon 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PassionoftheDamon, your statements here are quickly approaching harassment. Anthony Krupp made a mistake that I think many people, including myself would make in order to improve the Miami Hurricanes football article. Truly, you are going too far here. You are blatantly attempting to flame this user, which may be grounds for reporting. Obviously you are passionate about Miami Hurricanes football and wish to maintain the article in what you consider to be pristine condition. That is laudible, but you are plainly attacking Anthony Krupp. "We both know you vandalized the page and that you're a bad faith editor, offering such "good faith" edit summaries as "b.s" and "hardly called for." You're not fooling anyone. If you expect to have a productive Wiki career, you'd be wise to change your ways.-PassionoftheDamon 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)" is more than enough evidence that you are failing to assume good faith, and may be acting in bad faith yourself. Please think about it before you respond. Thank you. Scienter 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3RR report

I've blocked PassionOfTheDamon for a short time, but I urge you in the future to figure out a way to solve your difficulties with him that doesn't involve edit warring. Particularly over something as picayune as boldface. Nandesuka 13:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for sending the message. -Anthony Krupp 13:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant

I made a semi-protection request for the Immanuel Kant article as I have likewise been exasperated with the constant vandalism by anons. Hopefully this will make things quiet down. - Sam 06:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. I did so last week, with the same result. :( -Anthony Krupp 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental idealism chart

I noticed you're interested in German-language philosophers and you're the active author of the article about Immanuel Kant in English Wikipedia. I'm the main author of the Polish version of that article. I prepared nice chart illustrating arising of phenomena. Now I'd like to translate it into English and put it on Wikimedia and English Wikipedia. It's a pity my knowledge of English language is mediocre. So I'm not sure of English translations of four Kant's concepts.

I ask you for help. If you could strengthen me in my translations (depicted below as answers to some questions) or correct them, I'll be very grateful. These concepts are:

It creates some ideas, for example of God, soul etc. (my answer: “theoretical reason”)

It uses time and space to create experience (my answer: “senses”)

It uses categories to create concepts (my answers: “sense” or “reason” — I'm not sure which one answer/translation is more reliable)

Practical reason uses that to create some ideas, for example the idea of categorical imperative (my answer: “postulates”)

Use my Polish home page to answer, please.

w1k0 * 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there; I had trouble navigating your site (wasn't sure where to leave comments; unfortunately can't read Polish), so I'll respond here and hope you see this. I'm not a Kant scholar, so really can't answer your question. I was involved with the Kant page for a while, but I haven't tackled his first two critiques yet, so just don't know how to help you. Sorry about that. Best, Anthony Krupp 03:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lists

Wikipedia:Lists is a style guideline. Wikipedia:Lists has long had a section entitled "Criteria for inclusion in lists". I often cited to that very section at AfD for the reason to delete a list, specifically "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources." They rarely do and if they do they don't actually adhere to that membership criteria. Wikipedia:Lists recently has been rid of that membership criteria statement as well as revamp in other ways. Per Wikipedia page stats, you are in the tops with posts to Wikipedia talk:Lists, so I assume you have good insight into the matter. Would you please look into this. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schopenhauer's Country of Birth

In the time of Schopenhauer's birth the city of Danzig was still a part of Poland, it was actually an exclave of Poland surrounded by the Kingdom of Prussia. Five years later, in 1793, it was annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia during the Second Partition of Poland. Since You, just like me, think that the country of birth is important, could you change Prussia back to Poland. I cannot do it myself because of 3RR. If You have any questions please respond on my Talk page. Thank You. Space Cadet 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, don't let yourself get fooled. We are not going to misuse the biographies of Schopenhauer or others to discuss in detail the history of the cities they were born, lived, or died in. Adding the claim ", Poland" to biographies, and removing Category:German natives of East Prussia, is the main agenda of User:Space Cadet, see Special:Contributions/Space_Cadet. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 01:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Let me compare with Special:Contributions/Matthead to be balanced. Will respond soon. Anthony Krupp 01:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for stopping by. See the article's talk page for my responses.Anthony Krupp 11:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's people like Matthead and other edit warriors who stop me from more constructive work and limit my "agenda" to fighting vandals. Space Cadet 13:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Churchsign2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Churchsign2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Situation resolved, I trust.Anthony Krupp 05:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist Church

It was me, not Benji, who removed the category from Talk:Westboro Baptist Church. See there for explanation (under "Possibly Stupid Question"). --Motz5768 11:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]