User talk:Deor

Archives:

User talk:Deor/Archive1 (12/2006–12/2007)
User talk:Deor/Archive2 (1/2008–6/2008)

Gods

Why did you undo the roman names of the gods I put in brackets beside their greek counterparts?

(Coffeewhite (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

Wrong user

I have not created article List of Roman Emperors born in Serbia but nationalistic SPA account user:KaiSuTeknonBrute. My only job has been moving article to another name, so you can delete article--Rjecina (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BC AND AD

The reason I changed this is because simply he was a Roman and Greek and Italy and Greece use the AD and BC system.

Also why not just change the dates back why also delete all the names?

Also you need to stop acting like you are one of wikipedia's staff because you are not.

Latona was the Roman name for Leto which I forgot to put in.

And Italy and Greece using the AD and BC systems is a good reason.

It is like using CE and BCE in the history of a country that does'nt use these systems. (Coffeewhite (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

You are like an internet stalker, looking at everthing I do. It could be considered like this since I am a child. Leave me alone sicko Also you are not wikipedia staff so stop acting like one. (Coffeewhite (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

Is Deor out to lunch ?

Here Logicus posts a serious query about Deor's fitness to be meddling with Wikipedia articles that is posted on the Celestial Spheres Talk page, for a serious answer by Deor that he has not provided in spite or repeated challenges to do so.

Police Constable Deor ? Logicus says No !

Imperious User Deor has elected to set himself up as Police Constable Wikipedian who polices Wikipedia and reports breaches of what he imagines to be its rules and breaches of its rules to its administrators. Here we present Deor's latest arrogant imperious mistaken comments posted to Logicus's User Talk page for everybody to read

"[edit] Celestial spheres redux

I'm going to revert your additions and deletions once again. Repeatedly adding material that is not relevant to the article's topic and, in essence, constitutes an original synthesis of material in primary sources is disruptive and impermissible in Wikipedia. Any further disruption at this article will be brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as you have repeatedly attempted to insert your original research and personal interpretations of historical sources into multiple articles. This is an encyclopedia that relies on information gleaned from secondary sources, not a forum for posting what appears to individuals to be "logically" inferrable from the historical record. Deor (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Logicus" "

But on the cardinal issue here of relevance, it should be self-evident to one and all that any material on the causes of the motions of the celestial spheres, such as the theory of Buridan, is of absolutely central relevance to any article on the celestial spheres and their motions. And yet Wiki User Deor repeatedly seeks to deny this, and under repeated challenge to provide any rational justification for this unjustifiable POV, repeatedly fails to do so. Why is this ? Should User Deor be banned from meddling with Wikipedia articles because of his severe anti-educational tendency. [Watch this space !] Logicus

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Deor wrong about Ptolemy's alleged instrumentalism ?

In connection with Logicus's 27 June proposed deletion of the Celestial spheres article's following claim

“Through the use of the epicycle, eccentric, and equant, this model of compound circular motions could account for all the irregularities of a planet's apparent movements in the sky.[7][8]

as either false or meaningless and its replacement with a meaningful and historically truthful assessment of Ptolemy's achievement, on the 22nd of June in Celestial spheres Talk, you claimed it is a possibility "that Ptolemy, for one, didn't devote much thought to the problems and consequences associated with positing the physical existence of spheres, epicyles, etc. Deor (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)"

Logicus then pointed out to you that it seems this is not a possibility on the evidence of Ptolemy's Planetary Hypotheses, and also provided a quotation from the Introduction of Langermann's 1990 English language edition of Alhazen's Configuration of the World , which quotes Ptolemy's views in his Planetary Hypotheses on the two possible physical forms of the celestial bodies, as follows:

"In Book II [of Planetary Hypotheses] Ptolemy undertakes to establish the shapes of the bodies that carry out the heavenly motions....He states

'For each of these motions, which are different in quantity or kind, there is a body that moves freely on poles and in space and which has a special place...'

Ptolemy then postulates two possible paths of approach to the physical explanation of the workings of the cosmos.

'The first of them is to assign a whole sphere to each motion, either hollow like the spheres that surround each other or the earth, or solid and not hollow like those which do not contain anything other than the thing [itself], namely those that set the stars in motion and are called epicyclic orbs. The other way is that we set aside for each one of the motions not a whole sphere but only a section (qitcah) of a sphere. This section lies on the two sides of the largest circle which is in that sphere, namely that from which the motion is longitude [is taken]. That which this section closes from the two sides is [equal to] the amount of latitude. Thus the shape (shakl) of this section, when taken from an epicyclic orb, is similar to a tambourine (duff). When taken from the hollow sphere, it is similar to a belt (nitaq), an armband (siwar) or a whorl (fulkah), as Plato said. Mathematical investigation shows that there is no difference between these two ways that we have described.' [Nix 113:16-33 Goldstein 37:9-17]

However, as per usual when confronted by Logicus with rational arguments against your errors and invalid reasoning against Logicus's contributions and your unjustifiable deletions of them, you have not responded by either retracting your claim or else defending it against Logicus's refutation of it.

In the first instance Logicus would be grateful if you would be courteous and civil enough to either withdraw your claim or defend it here or else on the Talk page.

In the second instance, Logicus would like to know your possible justification for deleting Logicus's posting of Langermann's book in the article's Bibliography, which was

'Langermann, Y. Tzvi Ibn al Haytham's On the Configuration of the World New York: Garland Publishing, 1990'

Note this book is also cited by McCluskey in the article, and should therefore surely be listed in the Bibliography at least for that reason, even if you do not like Logicus quoting it to challenge McCluskey's interpretation of Ptolemy as being inconsistent on the form of the celestial bodies.

The practical purpose of this reasonable request is to clear the way for the article's improvement at least in respect of the assessment of Ptolemy's achievement, and towards that end to stem what Logicus regards as the destructive and counter-educational editing of such as yourself and McCluskey. --Logicus (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User Deor uncivilly transgresses Wikipedia courtesy requirements

Logicus would be grateful for a rational response from Deor on the following issue raised in Celestial spheres Talk on 7 July.

User Deor has yet again restored the following untenable claim in the Celestial spheres article first deleted by Logicus on 27 June after demonstrating it was either false or meaningless:

"Through the use of the epicycle, eccentric, and equant, this model of compound circular motions could account for all the irregularities of a planet's apparent movements in the sky.[7][8]"

without providing any justifying quotation for this claim from the justifying sources given, as courteously requested by Logicus here on 28 June in Talk as follows:

"User Deor has restored this false or meaningless claim deleted by Logicus without any justification. Even if somebody does make this bizarre claim, it does not mean it should therefore be repeated in Wikipedia. But in the first instance I propose Deor should provide the actual quotation from the source supplied that actually makes this bizarre claim, to see whether it does justify it.. One often finds with Wikipedia history of science sources for claims made that they do not justify the claim made because the author has misinterpreted what they actually said. I shall delete the claim again until it is reliably justified, but which of course it cannot be essentially because it is blatantly false. --Logicus (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)"

Thus Deor is apparently in breach of the courtesy requirement stipulated in the second and third paragraphs of the following Wikipedia rules for Verifiability in reliable sources

" # ^ When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable when they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered "best practice" under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources.

^ When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] "

Logicus would be grateful for Deor's compliance with these courtesy requirements, especially noting that Logicus has repeatedly shown Deor's friend McCluskey's cited sources do not justify the claims he makes, whereby McCluskey stands exposed as committing Original Research and breaching NPOV in such cases. In one recent major blunder in this respect, in the Scientific Revolution article's Talk page on 18 April McCluskey tried his usual stunt of insinuating or accusing Logicus's corrections of his untenable POV handiwork breach NPOV because Logicus had pointed out Aristotle did not maintain all motion requires an external force but only violent motion, contrary to McCluskey's claim that Aristotle did according to Stillman Drake. Thereupon Logicus had to quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Aristotle at McCluskey before he would accept Logicus was right and he and Drake as reported were wrong. The triumvirate of Deor, McCluskey and Ragesoss would do well to study this episode as a powerful illustration of how it is they, not Logicus, who impose POVs and Original Research in Wikipedia history of science articles, whilst making insulting unjustified accusations of such against Logicus who challenges them.

Will the outcome be similar in this case ? Will Deor manage to find some textual quotation that shows some historians of science do indeed hold this manifestly mistaken view ? --Logicus (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Logicus to Deor: Would you please kindly respond to this most reasonable Wiki policy courtesy request with the requested quotation.--Logicus (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Deor on God

Whether you imagine yourself to be God herself, or else at the very least an expert and authoritative theologian, your claim in Celestial spheres Talk of 24 February that God is nowhere in your negative comment on Logicus's query of that same date, namely that

“As you probably know, God isn't in any "place"; note "beyond physical existence" in the sentences you've quoted from the article.”

at least conflicts with the article's current claim that in the middle ages

"Christian and Muslim philosophers modified Ptolemy's system to include an unmoved outermost region, which was the dwelling place of God and all the elect."

Clearly if God is nowhere, then the restricted outermost region can hardly be his dwelling place.

Thus either the article is currently mistaken or you are.

Which is it?

Moreover your C.S. Lewis quotation does not establish God was nowhere in medieval cosmology, as you seem tro imagine it does.

But really, I don't reckon you really know where God is any more than silly old Logicus does, even though Logicus is one of God's favourite philosophers (-:

--Logicus (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Deor on Love

On 24 February last you challenged Logicus's claim that Aristotle's cosmology was the scientific origin of the well-known saying 'Love makes the world go round.' as follows:

“…the extremely unlikely "[Aristotle’s cosmology] is the scientific historical origin of the popular saying 'Love makes the world go round'" is unacceptable without some source other than your say-so.

But far from regarding Logicus’s claim as extremely unlikely, the anti Duhemian American historian of medieval science Edward Grant, who your mentor McCluskey regards as one of his mentors on the history of medieval science and advocates as a good starting point on the physics of the celestial spheres, says

"Although it is by no means certain that Aristotle is the ultimate source of these poetic sentiments [that 'Love makes the world go round'], he is surely a - if not the - leading candidate." [p67 The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages ]

Surely yet again Deor this reveals your apparent ignorance of the subject matter on which you seek to pontificate and educate Logicus on ? And does it not suggest to you that maybe the cause of your unjustified accusations that Logicus indulges in OR is rather maybe only a reflection of your own ignorance of the subject matter and its literature rather than reflecting any truth ?

Your observations here are invited on whether your holiness thinks I may restore something like what you deleted in one of your many educationally destructive edits, rather than more modestly just requesting a citation. --Logicus (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Astrology

I see the subject interests you. I don't know if this is from an observers POV or as a practitioner, but in 1976 when I held a vigil at the Liberty Memorial Mall in Kansas City after the Republican National Convention (Ref: Kathleen Patterson, 'Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil', The Kansas City Times, 13 September, 1976, pg 3A and Robert W. Butler, 'Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction', The Kansas City Times, 2 November, 1976) I enjoyed frequent access to drop into the studio of a local night radio talk show. One time an astrologist by the name of Gars Austin was on the line from Texas giving brief chart readings based only on the birth date of callers. Coming up to a news break and not knowing me, from the studio I asked if he could do a more in depth reading based on my birth at 8am Sunday morning in Montreal May 21, 1944. The talk show host, the listeners and I were amazed with what he came back with. I asked if the charts showed anything significant around February 1, 1975 the date of my Spiritual resurrection. He didn't know anything about that. We were all surprised when he said, "According to my chart, on that date you had a very powerful Spiritual experience." From that time I had to give more credence to what is written in the stars. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Logicus refutes Deor's accusations of irrelevancy and Original Research in 'Celestial spheres'

You have unjustifiably thrice deleted important additions on the impetus dynamics of the spheres to the 'Celestial spheres' article contributed by Logicus, these being additions on the centrally important topic of the causes of their motion posited in the middle ages by the Parisian impetus dynamics tradition.

You have done so on two separate grounds, namely that according to you

(i) material on the impetus dynamics of the spheres generally is not relevant to the article's topic and

(ii) the particular material Logicus added "in essence, constitutes an original synthesis of material in primary sources [that] is disruptive and impermissible in Wikipedia". This is allegedly an example of your unsubstantiated allegation of Logicus that "you have repeatedly attempted to insert your original research and personal interpretations of historical sources into multiple articles.", but of which sin you provided no other alleged example of such.

And you then magisterially further informed Logicus that

"This is an encyclopedia that relies on information gleaned from secondary sources, not a forum for posting what appears to individuals to be "logically" inferrable from the historical record." [Does "the historical record" here mean 'primary sources', or is it something different ?]

Now with respect to this last claim, for the moment I shall leave it as an exercise for you to demonstrate for yourself how it is grossly false as a descriptive thesis about Wikipedia, and how to the contrary it extensively relies on information also gleaned from primary sources and is an extensive forum for posting what appears to individuals to be "logically" inferable from the historical record.

Here Logicus is only concerned to demonstrate how your above two claims are grossly mistaken, and also how you have discourteously failed to respond to my refutation of the first of them, but instead yet again just deleted the added material in spite of it having been robustly demonstrated that it is centrally relevant to the article on the very criterion of relevance that you yourself asserted to justify its exclusion.

1) Refuting Deor's assertion that (i) 'material on the impetus dynamics of the spheres generally is not relevant to the article's topic'

The criterion of relevance you asserted on 20 June was as follows, with my caps for logical emphasis for the extremely hard of understanding:

"The article should deal with exactly what its title implies—the spheres, their NATURES, and their history in human thought—not the theories of impetus or inertia or the details of planetary motions."

On 22 June Logicus refuted this claim that what is implied by the article's title does not include dealing with the impetus dynamics or inertia of the spheres or the details of planetary motion, by demonstrating how to the contrary your own criterion that you claim is implied by the article's title must in fact include them, as follows:

"WRONG. Both the theories of inertia and of impetus are exactly of central relevance to the issue of the NATURES of the spheres, namely to whether they have inertia in their NATURES as an essential inherent resistance to motion, and to whether they have essentially divine NATURES with souls that move them around or only accidental internal impetus which assimilates them to the NATURE of inanimate terrestrial physics such as projectile motion. And the details of planetary motions are crucial to whether the spheres intersect or not, and thus what their physical NATURE must be e.g. solid or fluid and whether interpenetrable."

So on your own criterion of relevance, which includes dealing with the NATURES of the spheres, the article must therefore deal with the impetus dynamics of the spheres in respect of its analysis of their NATURES.

It may further interest you to know that the impetus dynamics of the spheres was of central relevance to one of the important questions of medieval celestial physics listed by McCluskey's mentor Edward Grant in his list of such questions that Logicus posted in the article, but which you unjustifiably deleted in yet another of your educationally destructive edits, namely

"Are the spheres moved by intelligences, angels, forms or souls, or by some principle inherent in their very matter ?"

Then on 27 June Logicus gave a further refutation of the Deor thesis that the impetus dynamics of the spheres is irrelevant to an article about them by reference to an example of how to the contrary it is regarded as of relevance for inclusion in the academic literature on the celestial spheres, and in particular by reference to an example from Edward Grant again, whose works Deor's friend McCluskey recommends as a good starting point for learning about the physics of the celestial spheres in the medieval period. Logicus kindly advised Deor as follows:

"For a 'scholarly' precedent in the inclusion of discussion of the issue of impetus dynamical explanations of the motions of the celestial spheres in discussions of the medieval physics of the spheres, Deor may wish to consult that American author much favoured by McCluskey, Edward Grant, in his 1996 The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages. Discussion of Buridan’s impetus mechanics of the spheres is included in its section on the physics of the celestial region ‘The Celestial Region: The causes of celestial motion.’ on page 112.--Logicus (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)"

Logicus now presents what Grant says in this discussion, since it seems Deor cannot have read it, and also to show clearly how Deor's view that impetus dynamics is irrelevant to discussion of medieval debates about the celestial spheres is his own untenable idiosyncratic personal POV which he should not impose upon the article by deleting contributions about it.

"Internal movers. A few natural philosophers rejected intelligences as celestial movers and sought the cause of celestial motions in impersonal internal forces. Already in the thirteenth century, John Blund and Robert Kilwardy argued that each celestial orb possessed a natural, instrinsic capability for self-motion, an opinion that might have come directly from Aristotle. By contrast with the vague, innate capacity postulated by Blund and Kilwardy, John Buridan applied his well-quantified impressed force, or impetus, theory to explain celestial motions. Because the Bible made no mention of intelligences as celestial movers, Buridan dispensed with them and assumed that at the creation God impressed incorporeal forces, or quantities of impetus into each orb. In the absence of external resistances and contrary tendencies in the heavens, the impressed impetus of an orb would remain constant and move its orb with uniform circular motion forever.

Internal and external movers combined. Even before John Buridan offered his explanation, Franciscus de Marchia (ca.1290-d. after 1344) combined angels and impressed forces to explain celestial motions. Sometime around 1320, Franciscus assumed that an angel moved its orb by impressing a certain power (virtus impressa) into it. Thus, instead of the motive power operating within the angel or intelligence, Franciscus has the angel impressing a motive force into the orb with which it is associated. The impressed force then moves the orb directly. Franciscus de Marchia's solution was destined for further debate by scholastic authors in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The influential Coimbra Jesuits adopted it in their commentary on Aristotle's On The Heavens in 1592."

Logicus now also quotes Grant's discussion of both impetus and also inertial resistance in the spheres from the 'Celestial movers' section of his 1978 'Cosmology' article in Lindberg's reader Science in the Middle Ages, since it not only again refutes Deor's untenable POV that impetus dynamics is irrelevant to reporting medieval discussions of the celestial spheres, but also refutes his and McCluskey's untenable idiosyncratic POV that discussion of inertia is also irrelevant to discussion of the motions of the celestial spheres, since here Grant discusses Oresme's treatment of the inertial resistance of the spheres, which is traditionally seen as prefiguring Newton's qualifying revision of inertial resistance as only resisting change from uniform motion, that is accelerated mtotion, rather than resisting all motion as in the versions of Averroes, Aquinas and Kepler:

"Not all late medieval explanations of celestial motions relied on intelligences or angels. John Blund and Robert Kilwardy insisted......Another motive source was proposed by Buridan when he suggested that perhaps "one could imagine that it is unnecessary to posit intelligences as the movers of celestial bodies since the Holy Scriptures do not inform us that intelligences must be posited. For it could be said that when God created the celestial spheres, He began to move each of them as He wished, and they are still moved by the impetus which He gave them because, there being no resistance, the impetus is neither corrupted nor diminished.

Oresme, for whom angels were the intelligences that moved the celestial orbs, also suggested [in The book of the heavens and of the world p289], without elaboration, that when God created heavens, "He put into them motive qualities and powers just as He put weight and resistance against these motive powers in earthly things. These powers and resistances are different in nature and substance from any sensible things or quality here below. The powers against the resistances are moderated in such a way, so tempered and so harmonised, that the movements are made without violence; thus, violence excepted, the situation is much like that of a man making a clock and letting it run and continue its own motion by itself." In the same treatise, Oresme also identified the celestial motive force as a "corporeal quality" within the orb itself which meets resistance only to prevent a more rapid motion."

[p285-6, 'Cosmology' in Science in the Middle Ages Lindberg (Ed) 1978.]

Now given these demonstrations that the inclusion of a discussion of the medieval theories of the impetus dynamics of the celestial spheres in the article is both (i) required by Deor's own criterion of relevance since it includes discussion of their NATURES, and that (ii) such discussions are also included in the literature on the physics of the celestial spheres recommended by Deor's adviser McCluskey, Logicus would now like to know whether Deor still maintains a discussion of the medieval impetus dynamics of the spheres is irrelevant to the article on celestial spheres, and if so, on what possible rational ground(s), if any, he does so.

2) Refuting Deor's allegation that (ii) the particular material Logicus added "in essence, constitutes an original synthesis of material in primary sources [that] is disruptive and impermissible in Wikipedia"

But contrary to this unsubstantiated allegation, Logicus submits it is evident from such as the above quoted secondary source material on impetus dynamics and the spheres from Grant's works that the particular material Logicus added is not an 'in essence an original synthesis of material in primary sources' at least because rather it is essentially to be found in the works of the mentor of Deor's friend McCluskey, namely Edward Grant. McCluskey recommends Grant's works as a good starting point for learning about the medieval physics of the celestial spheres.

More generally, the summary of Parisian impetus dynamics of the spheres Logicus presented is essentially just the standard view of the secondary literature rather than any original synthesis by Logicus. Whilst it is flattering that Deor should attribute the standard view of the secondary literature to an original synthesis of primary sources by Logicus, yet unfortunately for those familiar with this subject matter, in fact Deor's mistaken attribution only raises the whole question of the suitability of McCluskey's choice of watchdog over the article in his absence, and whether somebody apparently so radically unfamiliar with the literature on this subject should be editing this article at all. [On 5 July Deor wrote to Administrator Ragesoss in User talk:Ragesoss that "Steve McCluskey e-mailed me to keep an eye on [the Celestial spheres article] while he's taking a wikibreak." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicus (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So finally here Logicus re-presents what is essentially the 2 July last version of his proposed addition on the impetus dynamics of the spheres to the article, for readers to compare it with Grant's above views on that subject and verify that it essentially just reflects the view of the secondary literature on which it is based, rather than 'in essence constituting an original synthesis of material in primary sources' as Deor mistakenly alleges.

Logicus now invites Deor to either demonstrate his claim that the following text is 'in essence an original synthesis of material in primary sources' within 48 hours, or else desist from any further unagreed deletions of Logicus's contributions to the article on this topic.

TEXT

Parisian impetus dynamics and the celestial spheres

In the 14th century the logician and natural philosopher Jean Buridan, Rector of Paris University, subscribed to the Avicennan variant of Aristotelian impetus dynamics according to which impetus is conserved forever in the absence of any resistance to motion, rather than being evanescent and self-decaying as in the Hipparchan variant. In order to dispense with the need for positing continually moving intelligences or souls in the celestial spheres, which he pointed out are not posited by the Bible, Buridan applied the Avicennan self-conserving impetus theory to their endless rotation by extension of a terrestrial example of its application to rotary motion in the form of a rotating millwheel that continues rotating for a long time after the originally propelling hand is withdrawn, driven by the impetus impressed within it.[ref>According to Buridan's theory impetus acts in the same direction or manner in which it was created, and thus a circularly or rotationally created impetus acts circularly thereafter.</ref>

Earlier Franciscus de Marchia had given a 'part impetus dynamics - part animistic' account of celestial motion in the form of the sphere’s angel continually impressing impetus in its sphere whereby it was moved directly by impetus and only indirectly by its moving angel.[ref>See p112 The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages Edward Grant 1996</ref>This hybrid mechanico-animistic explanation was necessitated by the fact that de Marchia only subscribed to the Hipparchan-Philoponan impetus theory in which impetus is self-dissipating rather than self-conserving, and thus would not last forever but need constant renewal even in the absence of any resistance to motion.

But Buridan attributed the cause of the motion of the spheres wholly to impetus as follows:

"God, when He created the world, moved each of the celestial orbs as He pleased, and in moving them he impressed in them impetuses which moved them without his having to move them any more...And those impetuses which he impressed in the celestial bodies were not decreased or corrupted afterwards, because there was no inclination of the celestial bodies for other movements. Nor was there resistance which would be corruptive or repressive of that impetus."[ref>Questions on the Eight Books of the Physics of Aristotle: Book VIII Question 12 English translation in Clagett's 1959 Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages p536</ref>

However, having discounted the possibility of any resistance due to a contrary inclination to move in any opposite direction or due to any external resistance, in concluding their impetus was therefore not corrupted by any resistance Buridan also discounted any inherent resistance to motion in the form of an inclination to rest within the spheres themselves, such as the inertia posited by Averroes and Aquinas. For otherwise that resistance would destroy their impetus, as the anti-Duhemian historian of science Annaliese Maier maintained the Parisian impetus dynamicists were forced to conclude because of their belief in an inherent inclinatio ad quietem or inertia in all bodies.[ref>See 'The significance of the theory of impetus for scholastic natural philosophy', Chapter 4 of On the threshold of exact science: Selected writings of Annaliese Maier on Late Medieval Natural Philosophy Steven Sargent (Ed)University of Pennsylvania Press 1982</ref>But in fact contrary to that inertial variant of Aristotelian dynamics, according to Buridan prime matter does not resist motion.[ref>See e.g. Moody's statement contra Maier "What I have found in Buridan's writings...is the repeated assertion that "prime matter" does not resist motion..." in footnote 7 p32 of his essay Galileo and his precursors in Galileo Reappraised Golino (ed) University of California Press 1966</ref>

But this then raised the question within Aristotelian dynamics of why the motive force of impetus does not therefore move the spheres with infinite speed. One impetus dynamics answer seemed to be that it was a secondary kind of motive force that produced uniform motion rather than infinite speed,[ref>The distinction between primary motive forces and secondary motive forces such as impetus was expressed by Oresme, for example, in his De Caelo Bk2 Qu13, which said of impetus, "it is a certain quality of the second species...; it is generated by the motor by means of motion,.." [See p552 Clagett 1959]. And in 1494 Thomas Bricot of Paris also spoke of impetus as a second quality, and as an instrument which begins motion under the influence of a principal particular agent but which continues it alone. [See p639 Clagett 1959].</ref> just as it seemed Aristotle had supposed the spheres' moving souls do, or rather than uniformly accelerated motion like the primary force of gravity did by producing constantly increasing amounts of impetus.

However in his Treatise on the heavens and the world in which the heavens are moved by inanimate inherent mechanical forces, Buridan's pupil Oresme offered an alternative 'Thomist' response to this problem in that he did posit a resistance to motion inherent in the heavens (i.e. in the spheres), but which is only a resistance to acceleration beyond their natural speed, rather than to motion itself, and was thus a tendency to preserve their natural speed.[ref>"For the resistance that is in the heavens does not tend to some other motion or to rest, but only to not being moved any faster." Bk2 Ch 3 Treatise on the heavens and the world</ref>This analysis of the dynamics of the motions of the spheres seems to have been a first anticipation of Newton's subsequent more generally revised conception of inertia as resisting accelerated motion but not uniform motion. --Logicus (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ejscript

After helping with this software-related AfD, would you be able to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterModule? Thanks in advance :). Ironholds 10:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti You

Welcome to the ranks of those who work hard enough to keep this place clean that others create anti yous! Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 00:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Julian the Apostate (again)

I am contacting you because you participated in a recent discussion at Talk:Julian the Apostate about changing the title of the page. That discussion closed, and immediately afterwards a new proposal was created to move the page to Julian. Please give your opinion of this new proposal at Talk:Julian the Apostate#Requested_move_2. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Camping

I am a little curious why you thought the article I linked wasn't appropriate for camping as it had very relevant recommendations for the topic. I understand that WP is not a collection of links but I thought that was fairly relevant.

(Ppetschel (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

I freely admit to being a neophyte to posting on wp but I find it hard to believe that a journalistic site recommending both products for everyone (not selling mind you) and adventure trips don't meet the criteria. I will read what you recommended and while I may have posted in the wrong place I meant no malicious harm and instead of admonishing you may try a different approach.

(Ppetschel (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Hey !

guess you're my gardian angel, erasing everything that's not on the right path of the WIKI corp rules system ! THanx again ! User: AlexLevyOne ow sorry than ! AOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLevyOne (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AlexLevyOne

Given your own efforts to try to slow him down a bit, I thought you might want to know that I posted an item about him on the Wikiquette Alerts page, here. JohnInDC (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, he's back and making edits of approximately the same quality. JohnInDC (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks for a 2 week vacation! JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Barbaro family

I did not see your note before I corrected some organization. I made some general improvements based on bio records- and I think it is much better. I can not add anything else more. You would have too look further to get more details. thanksDr.Oak (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have reverted the barbaro family page. Is there a reson for this? I think organization was substantially improved- I was going through to make sure that all grammar and blue links were present, then I experienced an edit conflict. Please express your reasoning for reverting, thanksDr.Oak (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I don't really understand your concern, there is also sourcing on the page that can be checked by researchers, the golden book, which is also this: libro d'oro, there is also a bio on file with alumni records as well. The latter version is expressed clearly, which the former is not, when one phrases things like, this branch built this...readers don't really know what that means, or why there are two seperate Barbaro palaces etc. There are also substantial historical mistakes- no where in the Bio that was provided in alumni records or the golden book does it say that a hand was flown, or it is on it's ancestral device. The version you reverted is a very poor article that is not written well, and with factual mistakes.Dr.Oak (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Dr" got blocked.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 06:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A piece of advice ...

Heya Deor!

I'm just throwing my two bits down here ..... feel free to ignore it.

Dr. Oak is a relatively new editor. I saw what you wrote over at Talk:Barbaro family, and I certainly agree about the need requirement for proper sourcing. However, your town really comes across as you are the owner of the article. You gave a piece of advice which ammounted to "I would think twice about editing this article", and then threatened to report the editor. I have no interest in the article, and I know nothing about the noble families of Italy, but perhaps more explanation as to why some of the material which appears to be sourced. You seem to be knowledgeable, but you are coming across as "this is unacceptable, because I say so", and that by itself is not acceptable. Please explain what's going on to other editors.

Best of luck in editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been conversing a bit with User talk:Daniel J. Leivick. I think I have a clearer idea of what has been going on, and wish to express my appreciation to editors like you and Dan for watchdogging the articles. I had been working with Dr. Oak for the past few weeks, and did not suspect that anything was amiss. He had invited me to join him in editing the Barbaro family article, and I am now especially glad I turned him down. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

At the top of your talk page, you say that you'll "revert anything I deem to be vandalism". If you can explain, either here or at my talk page, how you deemed this reversion to be one of vandalism, I'd appreciate it. Deor (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

By and large, I try to avoid what looks like disputes or arguments that you get into with other editors; however, for some odd reason you manage to show up at any ANI thread I start or am in and then make all sorts of unwarranted comments that I deliberately don't make against you and as such I didn't regard your comments to me as meriting a response based on what looked like bad faith comments about me elsewhere. So, put simply don't make insulting comments about someone and then expect them to discuss with you. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Deor, don't worry about it. It has nothing to do with you; LGRdC does this with every single comment at his talk page that he cannot easily respond to with his usual barrage of links and diffs, non sequiturs and ad hominems. Just see e.g. this deeply dishonest edit summary. Most of the time, I don't worry about him anymore. He's destroying himself more effectively than anyone else ever could and he will eventually be banned for that sort of conduct. user:Everyme 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Probably unwanted advice

The advise is good, though the tone could use some work. Plhofmei (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking dates

Haven't you heard? It's all changed. Basically, autoformatting is now deprecated, for various good reasons. --Pete (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Silvana Franco

I've reinserted the information about Silvana being married beause I had properly inserted it with a source that backs it up.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 07:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Maximianus (poet), and Deor

Interesting! Thank you for that bit. I agree with you: indeed, that's why I included the part in Jack Powers (Gold Rush era highwayman, which I wrote last week) about how he was murdered and his body fed to a pen of hungry pigs. It's eye-catching. By the way, good to meet someone who knows what Deor is: I've always been fascinated by that poem, even though I can't read it in the original Anglo-Saxon; it seems to be one of the only lingering reminiscences of their Germanic homeland, and echoing a lost literature. (Isn't it considered to be the oldest poem in our literature, dating from perhaps the 7th century?) Oh how I'd love to know what was lost from that time; did the victors at Teutoberger Wald have poems that lasted and were lost; did any of that survive into that same age when Maximianus was active. Interesting stuff, but I'm only an amateur there. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

East Africa vandal

Hi, There's a vandal on the East Africa page that keeps reverting the sourced map and introduction for some other version. You've already warned this user about his reversions on the Americas page. Can you please ask him to refrain from disrupting the East Africa page as well? Thank you in advance. 70.24.196.120 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

These are good-faith edits, not vandalism. And, I suppose the reporter is not an edit warrior? This editor invokes consensus and says the map is sourced, but it isn't. The current version is more inclusive regarding the definition of the topic at hand and, despite accusations, no references have been removed; they've been retained. Given the passion of the reverts and positioning, I suspect this is User:Causteau editing as a sockpuppet.

Those are not good faith edits. They are unjustified reversions of a referenced map and introduction. This 69.158.149.30 IP is the same IP from the talk page, blocked user E Pluribus Anthony. He is also conducting reversions across several different pages at a time including Americas and East Africa, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). 70.24.196.120 (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course they're good faith edits; I also don't know what or who this user is talking about. Feel free to double-check my IP; I'm certain a check of the commenting anonymous IP will reveal it to be User:Causteau (Bell:Montreal), currently under duress. 69.158.149.30 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.Digi Time Capsule

You say here that no evidence has been provided, but if you look at the talk page of the creator, you'll see the deletion of the original "Digi time capsule" article. Thanks, Leonard^(Bloom) 03:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

True, I can't close as delete. (And I guess this wasn't clear; I'm sorry, my bad) I closed as nom', because I was going to tag it with G4, instead of pulling needlessly through AfD. Much appreciated, Leonard^(Bloom) 04:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your incorrect grammer

When a last name ends with an "s", to pluralize you do this s' not like you wrote in the Alfred Shea Addis article. The correct way is Addis' If you don't believe me look it up. Chaos4tu (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

You might be interested in the discussion here. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Deor, due to serious real-life off-wiki harassment, I have invoked my right to vanish and I am in the process with admin assistance of cleaning out and deleting my userspace. Any articles moved into mainspace as redirects were done so in consultation with other editors. Within short order all of my userspace will be deleted, username changed, etc. Therefore, do not write to or about me anywhere in order to respect my and my family's privacy. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis

Hi, I noticed you reverted my recent edits to the C.S. Lewis infobox, noting that you believed it was best to cut down on infbox cruft. I actually only added one name to the "influenced" list. My main goal was alphabetizing the lists, which I belive would help the section be more readable. The name I added to the list was Neil Gaiman. Lewis was already listed under the influences section of his article, and I even have reliable sources to back the statement up. I just didn't include them since none of the other names had sources. I'm not trying to reprimand you for removing the information, I just thought you might feel differently if you knew the reasoning behind them. 75.93.9.235 (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)