Jump to content

User talk:Alcmaeonid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.253.50.139 (talk) at 00:43, 9 November 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You've got the floor. To leave a message on a new topic, click here .
 Note: if you start a dialog here, I will respond here and not on your talk page (thus keeping the conversation in one place.) - oh and please do sign your posts.

It is clear that if we are to live in harmony with ourselves and with nature, we need to be able to communicate freely in a creative movement in which no one permanently holds to or otherwise defends his own ideas [...] after all, it is easy for each one of us to see that other people are 'blocked' about certain questions, so that w/o being aware of it, they are avoiding the confrontation of contradictions in certain ideas that may be extremely dear to them.

The very nature of such a 'block' is, however, that it is a kind of insensitivity or 'anesthesia' about ones own contradictions. Evidently then, what is crucial is to be aware of the nature of ones own 'blocks'. If one is alert and attentive, he can see for example that whenever certain questions arise, there are fleeting sensations of fear, which push him away from consideration of those questions, and of pleasure, which attract his thoughts and cause them to be occupied with other questions. So one is able to keep away from whatever it is that he thinks may disturb him. And as a result, he can be subtle defending his own ideas, when he supposes that he is really listening to what other people have to say.

David Bohm, On Dialogue

Welcome!

Since you haven't been welcomed yet...

Welcome!

Hello, Alcmaeonid, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Lisatwo 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schopenhauer

  1. Never, never insert comments on the top of the user's talk page. It's rude, disrespectful and against the WIKI etiquette. Your comment was deleted as will be others inserted in the same manner.
  2. Don't run around calling people vandals without proper evidence.
  3. Always read other people's edit summaries. Usually a simple explanation will be provided there, even for what you might find as a shocking edit.
  4. There was conflicting information in the infobox (Stutthof) and in the text (Danzig) and I had to correct it.
  5. Don't use the Danzig (Gdańsk) vote as an excuse for petty edit wars, especially if you don't understand the outcomings of the vote.
  6. Answer on my talk page (on the bottom, where it won't be deleted), how, in your opinion, did I violate the vote consensus.
  7. Avoid pointless edit wars by discussions on Talk pages and reaching consensus there.
  8. Don't push your POV by issuing warnings to other users.
  9. Since this is (hopefully) your first time and I have not heard any complaints about you, I'm going to go easy on you. In the future, however, behavior like that will be immediately reported and sanctions against you will be taken.
  10. Your cooperation will be appreciated by the whole community.

Space Cadet 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Ignore threats, and stand up to edit warriors. -- Matthead discuß!     O       06:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Become a Pole hating edit warrior yourself, like Matthead here. Space Cadet 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. it is not against Wikipedia:Etiquette
  2. he does not run around calling people vandals
  3. the Space Cadets edit summaries "Danzig was Polish, Stutthof was not. Correct me if I'm wrong." and "Still part of Poland until 1793." are unenough to change Danzig to Stutthof[1]
  4. Cadet did not correct it. he changed it wrong
  5. Alcmaeonid had no petty edit wars
  6. this must be done on the talk page of the article
  7. Cadet changed Danzig to Stutthof so he must do that
  8. Cadet knows not his POV
  9. Cadet has no right to issue threats
  10. Cadet is not the whole community--00:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Yes it is.
  2. He did call me a vandal
  3. Corrected inconsistency
  4. Corrected inconsistency and then went along with DaQuirin's explanation
  5. Started one with me
  6. As long as it's done which it wasn't, but just simply got ignored
  7. I did
  8. I do
  9. Informing fellow Wikipedians of the policies and rules is not considered a threat
  10. I'm not. But due to my WIKI experience I can sometimes speak for it

Space Cadet 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your defense my anonymous friend (further above) but I would advise a sovereign detachment, bearing in mind that everywhere, and at all times, we must allow the fool to be a fool. Alcmaeonid 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Namecalling is also a reportable offense, unfortunately. Stop already. Space Cadet 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, one or two of my edits should not have been marked as minor. Have a good day.Andycjp (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, Pro & Con

Ongoing random thoughts. Feel free to add your own.

Pros

  • Large editorial staff. Imagine an encylopedia having thousands of editors poring over it's pages everyday making improvements and repairs. And they donate their time and energy for free, just for the pure enjoyment of bringing knowledge to the people. Alcmaeonid 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cons

  • Un-vetted editorial staff. Imagine opening your project to any old editor who may want to join, regardless of qualifications. These editors may have political, racial, nationalistic, religious (add many here) personal agendas and yet are granted the same editorial rights as the rest. Much energy must be continually expended on fighting the polemical contamination of articles by this determined, sometimes fanatical minority. Alcmaeonid 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Fleming

Hi - I have reviewed and declined to speedily delete Cristian Fleming. The article asserts notability through an international tour. In order to be speedily deleted, a page about a musician must not meet any of the criteria listed at WP:MUSIC. You should feel free to list this at articles for deletion, but a speedy deletion is not appropriate in this case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. - Philippe | Talk 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of article only serves to trivialize Wikipedia and tarnish it's image in the eyes of the public. Alcmaeonid 18:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this

It's almost done: Glossary of philosophical isms.

By the way, welcome to the Philosophy WikiProject! The Transhumanist 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

David Hume

Hi. I am a strong Wikipedia supporter and enjoy trying to contribute but am a rank amateur. My comment on psychologists was intended to provide clickable access to an alternate view of induction and how experience may function biologically. Would quoting the work of Skinner or Hebb be appropriate or is referring to psychology in general a no no in philosophy? Lrunge (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Regarding your comment: "Psychologists would argue that animal faith depends on reinforcement" [2] I think it a good one. The concept of reinforcement is highly relevant to the subject. But it needs a supporting citation, and one from Skinner or Hebb would be more than sufficient. In general it is best to avoid "some say" types of statements.
I would also urge you to put something on your home page, anything. When editors see that red color on a user name it creates an immediate subjective bias (unfairly, I know.) Sorry if I was a bit short in my edit comment. I look forward to your contributions on David Hume and elsewhere. If I can help out in any way, just drop a line. Regards, Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful comments. I shall make my contributions more specific and realize that referring to ideas broadly is not all that helpful. Lrunge (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding Hume's view on racism, can you please add your thought on the discussion page before deleting content? Thank you. Serkalem (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are already there.[3] As I said before there is a long history of this discussion. Check it out. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lrunge, reference to psychology is a mortal sin in philosophy because no one can directly know and communicate individual brain activity in an objective manner.Lestrade (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Richard Burton dispute

I think you should be aware that if our dispute is not resolved, I intend to put a POV tag on the article and delist it as GA. An article cannot be good if it is not honest. Haiduc (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rollback

Hello Alcmaeonid.
I have notice that you revert a lot of vandalism. Have you heard of rollback before? It allows a user to revert vandalism much faster than by undo-ing it. I think you should ask for it. I am not an admin, or I would give it to you myself. I wrote this just to let you know about the existence of rollback because before someone randomly gave it to me, I did not know it existed. If you ask for it, you should have no problem getting it, as you clearly have an excellent grasp of what constitutes vandalism. Good luck, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoygabsadds 17:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I have added this Elven dagger to my anti-vandal armory.~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Koestler

You asked for a page number for the references on Koestler's misogyny. As far as I can recall, Cesarani mentions this on a number of occasions in the book. I don't know which would be suitable, but it is one of Cesarani's recurring themes, along with the idea that AK was a Jew in denial. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern here is that these kinds of defamatory statements get properly sourced. Any one of the page numbers you mention would do. I think it should take the form of a complete citation though, as per: WP:CITE#FULL. Thanks for your quick response, Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the pagenum I requested relates not to his misogyny in general but to the specific charge that he "beat and raped several women." ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alcmaeonid. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


reverted your edit to Allegory of the cave

I reverted your edit to Allegory of the cave since you seem to have replaced a large block of text with an "a". Perhaps you had some reason to remove the block of text and the "a" was a typo? --Pleasantville (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully you will see that I was reverting a case of evident vandalism. [4] The "a" was left over from a previous reference edit. I will fix it up and you can take a look. Although I appreciate your vigilance in the ongoing vandal war, I would urge you to take just a little more time to assess the situation before swinging that axe. Good hunting.~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good

Thanks for your recent help with Cangrande della Scala and other relevant Italian condottieriarticles. As you maybe noticed, I wrote or improved most of them. Thanks and good work. --Attilios (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have noticed—and you are to be congratulated on your extensive work in establishing a broad base in this very important area. If you're interested, check out the similar work I have done in the subject area here. Any feedback would be welcome. Regards, Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Very good work! I'd like to read it if having it printed... apart the usual typos of Italian names. By the way, this is my last addition; maybe you can help me with MY English typos. Keep your good work and compliments again... Ciao da --Attilios (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Hemingway GA reassessment

As a leading editor of Ernest Hemingway, please see Talk:Ernest Hemingway/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with the Ernest Hemingway GA Reassessment? I see you looked like you were going to get involved and nothing but rvs seem to be happening.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put an offer on the table which was met with a resounding silence. So there it sits. My interest is in getting a group of people involved in improving this article. As far as its "GA" status goes, I frankly don't care what it's rated. Imo ratings are really for editors and their vanity, not the reading public. If you'd like to collaborate on digging in and doing some re-work over there, let me know. Regards, Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are one who expressed that they would not be able to assist the article until September, I am notifying you that if at the conclusion of one month (Sept. 11) at GAR no significant progress is made, the article will be delisted. Thanks for the invite to partake. This is not my area. I run WP:CHICAGO, which is tangentially related to the article. Good luck.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain

Im sorry for that im not sure what ive left that message for but i am sorry for the inconvenice hda3ku (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Allegory of the Cave

I created an image and added it to the page, but it has been removed because it doesn't correctly illustrate the allegory. Personally I think it does, but you might want to voice an opinion on the talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hemingway

Gu Alcmaeonid, I dug out my Ernest Hemingway books and left a post at Talk:Ernest_Hemingway#Restoration about some ideas for how to work on the article. You'd expressed interest at the recent Good Article Review... If you're still interested and have access to some good books, or just have some good ideas, or whatever else, please share whatever you've got! Should be fun too. (And the article is semi-protected from vandalism until at least January--I just noticed it hadn't been edited in over a week!) Cheers, --JayHenry (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple edits

Hi Megacles or Cleisthenes or whichever of those accursed and polluted Alcmaeonids you might be! Greetings. You posted on my Talk Page a rebuke about my multiple edits. Yes I plead guilty to having a trigger-happy finger when it comes to saving my edits. It's a habit I developed after numerous accidental edit clashes - I hate seeing my hard work disappear without trace when somebody edits the article with a piffling alteration before I can finish my own, more considered edit! I might try to control myself a little better in future - but an Alcmaeonid really has no business lecturing others about right behaviour. To misquote Yeats a little:

Don't talk to me of give and take,
What should be and what not
While those dead men are loitering there
To stir the boiling pot. Lucretius (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we Alcmaeonids are an accursed lot—but that seems to motivate us to work even harder! No ill will intended. All those edits just make it a hassle to try and follow along and sort out the adds & removes. Cheers. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Psychopathy checklist manual.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Psychopathy checklist manual.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Chekhov

With respect, it's not enough to change the sentence: the note has to be sourced. Clearly, you know where it comes from, so it's a matter of adding that. qp10qp (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I did add the source. - Simmons, pg.595. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see you added it in the next edit. Apologies. qp10qp (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I simply love your sketch (right). Bravo! ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About time I put another one up. qp10qp (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Meetup: We need your help!

The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!

The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I want to thank you for that vote of support on the talk page. I was astonished as you were by the interpretation put on my edit by the other A. Then Haiduc posted his next edit and it included some very uncharacteristic concessions, which astonished me even more. I concluded then that the other A is working with Haiduc behind the scenes, which could be a good thing if it leads Haiduc to a more realistic position. However, I'm now looking at the fine print in Haiduc's edit and I can see that there are a lot of strings attached (e.g. his Plutarch quote includes another reference to Solon's alleged pederasty laws). So there are still some unresolved self-contradictions in the section and it invites further editing. If Haiduc is prepared to be realistic, he will follow through with my suggestions about those further edits because this will help stabilize the article. If he doesn't, I'll be interested to see how the other A responds. If nothing is done, we are left with an article that still looks as if somebody is trying to sneak into it a pro-pederastic message - which is a recipe for more vandalism. Wikipedia is certainly an interesting experiment - I wonder if it will still be around in ten years? Lucretius (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off allow me to commend you: first on your work over there at Solon, which has been outstanding as far as I am concerned, and secondly... well I am filled with admiration at your patience and continual good faith in dealing with what appears at face to be a single issue editor. I have gone a round with him in the past and have regrettably allowed some anger to enter into my exchanges. Agenda editors are one thing—a persistant and nefarious threat to neutrality—but this particular agenda raises a whole host of morality issues that Wikipedia has historically tended to avoid. Put simply: it crosses an invisible line. Personally, I think much of the LGBT agenda has been good for the encyclopedia on the whole. It has provided some much needed balance to some woefully out-of-whack articles. Yet somehow I don't think this issue is main stream LGBT. It lies perhaps on a fringe but, more likely, over the border into an abusive area. From my perspective, this needs to be blocked and not allowed to enter a place that welcomes children.
As far as the edit goes, I would say that Scanlon, although a good source in many ways, is open to question in regards to his interpretations. See e.g :
  • “Chapter 8 (75 pages) finally addresses directly the subject of the title, Greek athletics, and Eros/eros, in its many interpretations. The gymnasium as a center for pederasty, the erotics of athletic nudity, and sexual abstinence for athletes are some of the topics that are discussed here. Scanlon devotes an extensive section to images of the god Eros and athletes, although this devolves into a running list based heavily on the entry in LIMC. Again there is a tendency to overinterpret, especially when dealing with miserably formulaic images from the fourth century.” [1]
  • “Yet it is hard to be sure that the whole matches the sum of its parts. This book is very poorly produced: rarely can a first-rate scholar and a famous press have combined to worse effect. There are inconsistencies of every kind. Some, of course, may result from the combination of previously published work.”[2]
  • “Although Scanlon's text is often disappointing, repetitious, thin on theory, inadequately edited, and riddled with errors and inconsistences, there is a wealth of anecdotal material for the careful student of ancient sexuality.”[3]
  • "The mass of the material is impressive; the individual results, however, are somewhat less surprising. Considering the great importance of Eros in every culture and of athletics in Greek culture, it was to be expected that there are many relations between the two. S. admits that 'attitudes differed from city to city, generation to generation, and perhaps among different classes' (p. 272), but he does not provide a systematic distinction between epochs or poleis, and is therefore unable to explain these differences either. As a consequence of this, the precise causal and functional relations of the connected elements, for example between pederasty and athletics, remain unclear.”[4]
Just some stuff to chew on. In regards to Wikipedia being around in ten years I would say definitely yes. The question being in what form? And will it then be of use to students & teachers? Please accept my pledge of support in keeping the Solon article neutral and not compromised by speculation. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this. Yes I thought the Scanlon book must be iffy - the claim within it that Solon had certainly legislated pederastic reform to some extent is clearly an iffy kind of statement, especially in the context of most other scholarship. However I don't think the latest round of edits has really changed anything - the average reader who gets that far in the article will probably still conclude that the sexual theme is much ado about nothing. A joke by a comic dramatist, a bit of maudlin conjecture by an author of imaginative biographies, and a mere inference from an orator's speech - this might amount to something for a one issue editor but most people are rational beings. H wants to bring pederasty under the banner of Gay Rights. Gays have to stop him doing this. Nowadays teachers and policeman can openly acknowledge their homosexuality but nobody openly declares himself to be a pederast. Yet H continues to accuse people of homophobia just because they resent his propaganda. Lucretius (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ McNiven, Timothy J. (January, 2003). "Reviewed work(s): Eros and Greek Athletics". American Journal of Archaeology. 107 (1): 126–127. Retrieved February 23, 2009. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Golden, Mark (Winter, 2004). "Reviewed work(s): Eros and Greek Athletics". Phoenix. 58, No. 3/4. Classical Association of Canada: 353. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Younger, John G. (January, 2003). "Reviewed work(s): Eros and Greek Athletics". Journal of the History of Sexuality. 12, No. 1. University of Texas Press: 153–155. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Mann, Christian (Oct., 2003). "Reviewed work(s): Eros and Greek Athletics by T. F. Scanlon". The Classical Review, New Series. 53, No. 2. Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association: 467–468. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Thanks for uploading File:My Dinner With Andre dvd cover.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B Traven

Sorry I am not happy about your photo of the B Traven site and in particular the caption.

You say 'reliably thought'. The source you give is 1948, over 60 years ago - The article by Dwight Whitney was big news then but it is more than a little dated now. This should be clear from the article, but you do not seem to have read it.

Firstly, B Traven is a pen-name - not a name used in everyday life. The authorship question is 'who was the man who wrote under the name B Traven ?'. So I presume the caption means that the photo is 'the only known photo of the man who wrote under the name B Traven'. This is not true. The man in the photo has been photographed many times. Whether he is the Traven author is open to question, but I think almost everyone accepts he is.

Let me explain - all the evidence suggests that The B Traven author is an individual who variously went under the names of Hal Croves, Traven Torsvan and Ret Marut. In fact the Croves/Traven identification was the point of Whitney's article. The photo you show was in 1948 one of the few photos of this man, and is taken when he was calling himself Traven Torsvan. Since then however, we have learned much more and many more photos are available. In fact there is even some film of him. And he appears as an extra in one scene of Treasure of Sierra Madre.

I am changing your caption and I hope we can leave it there.

Thank you

--John Price (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:My Dinner With Andre dvd cover.jpg)
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:My Dinner With Andre dvd cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) Robert D. Hare's

The piece I added and is removed by Wikipaedia as "Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Hare Psychopathy Checklist, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC) (and previous dates)" This is not my personal view. It is written by a famous psychiatrist Dr Bob Johnson (psychiatrist). I am a mathematician and have not any personal or non-personal idea regarding PCL-R, (except that it is a piece of irrelevant pathological science and I have not declared this private personal view here) and I am not committed to analyse such subject matters. Only in compliance to wikipedia policy in allowing criticism of controversial ideas in an academic and polite manner and far from intimidation and libelling I added word by word from Dr Bob Johnson (psychiatrist)'s peer reviewed article with full links and publicly available pdf of its reference. Please do not block me. I didn't notice your previous messages. I only became surprised how some one diligently suppresses this few lines of criticism from a very controversial subject regarding liberty and jurisdiction in free democratic societies. Dr Bob Johnson has worked in capacity of head psychiatrist in penal system in Great Britain. Ref: Dr Bob Johnson [5] An analysis of medical and legal flaws in the PCL-R [6]. Gentlemen, may I ask you as a matter of neutrality put back these few lines of criticism?
Peter Jones --PeterJones1380 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJones1380 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies not with the presentation of material critical to the PCL-R—there are many valid critiques out there—but in your method of presentation. To comply with the encyclopedia's NPOV policy the material must be formatted as representing a single viewpoint (with attendant references, of course) and not as unequivocal fact. Please review the aforementioned policy by following the blue-link above and then re-submit your material. If you need help in shaping it, I may be able to assist. Regards. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Sanders_Peirce&diff=290991630&oldid=290936963 The Tetrast (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2KB reduction according to the article history (which doesn't reflect large size of "Logic" template removed from bottom while adding "Logic" link among the "See also" links). The Tetrast (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidated "References" into the footnotes. Reduction by almost 6KB. Some of the references no longer referred to anything in the article. Last parts of wiki now generally looking rather smaller. The Tetrast (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Link Farm template refers to "External links" but you placed it above "See also" so I have assumed that your edit remark "this section is now over the edge" referred to the "See also" to which somebody had just added a bunch of links to Statistics wikis. Anyway:

  • I checked those linked statistics articles and only one of them mentioned Peirce, and that was in its page-bottom references. I deleted the whole subsection.
  • I've deleted a number of other "See also" links as well. I consolidated the "Abstraction" sub-section, which contained only two items, into another sub-section. At this point I've deleted at over 2 KB worth of "See also" items.
  • I both deleted and added links under "External links" but deleted much more than I added. It's smaller.
  • Additionally I had already shrunk "External links" by linking to relevant section in the CSP bibiography three days before you added the "Link Farm" template.
  • I consolidated the "References" section into footnotes. A good deal of the "References" section had been redundant and I was able simply to delete it. The one part that I didn't delete I added into the Bibliography section.
  • I removed the big "Logic" links section resulting from the "Logic" template at the bottom.
  • The sections after the footnotes are and appear collectively rather smaller than they previously did.

At this point I think I have done way more than enough, given that you added the "Link farm" template over "See also" and that you said "this section is now over the edge", presumably referring to the recent addition of a Statistics links subsection. I've certainly pulled the article back from over the edge and pulled it back further than that. As a whole the article is now over 8 KB smaller, mostly through reductions of the final sections, and that doesn't even reflect the removal of the big "Logic" links section which doesn't get measured by the Wiki software except in terms of the tiny 9-byte "Logic" template. The Tetrast (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good editing work getting this section down to a manageable size. Still, don't you think this section of internal links is somewhat overdone? What about this section: Contemporaries associated with Peirce. To my mind if these names do not appear in the context of the article they have no need to appear in a list. I refer to: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files specifically section 2 which says: "Wikipedia articles are not... mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with article organisation and navigation." I know there is some wiggle room here and I don't want be a stickler on this. I'm going to remove the template and let you decide what's best. Btw, I think you've compiled an admirable history of good edits on the article and it goes back quite a ways. Regards. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I hadn't actually read WP:SEEALSO before. The link collection was never quite mere, but I didn't know that a "See also" should stick to links not already in the article's main body. So I took the policy as an opportunity today to prune and consolidate even further, making room for links that aren't already in the main body, links to Wikis or Wiki sections of which I recently became aware in checking out articles mentioning Peirce. The overall result was still a reduction by me today from 55 to 27 links, in two sub-sections instead of three. I ended up adding a few directly to the main body instead of "See also", and others can be moved from "See also" in time. The Tetrast (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Now I've demoted the "See also" sub-section headings from TOC to mere bolded phrases. The result is that the TOC itself now is distinctly narrower. I thought maybe of left-floating the TOC. When I previewed the result, it looked crowded, what with the image of Peirce on the right. The resultant column of article text is hovering at around 1/3 of screen width, maybe a just a little less. I don't know. If you preview it and like the idea, go ahead and do it or let me know and I'll do it. Otherwise I'll leave it alone. It's just looking at all that blank space by the TOC that got me to thinking about it. The Tetrast (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

David Hume

As the GAR reviewer, I am informing you that David Hume, an article that you worked on, was delisted in GA sweeps process. My suggestions are available on the GAR page. Hope they are useful for article improvement.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commonsense doesn't always prevail

Hi Alcmaeonid. There is a debate about keeping/deleting an article titled Greek Love. As an intelligent man, you'll know by the title what the problem is. Unfortunately, intelligence is a commodity that is in scant supply in debates of this kind. Never the less, you might want to piss against the wind. I have done my bit. The discussion is here [7]. Good luck. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Too late now - the article has been endorsed by an overwhelming vote. Yet nobody knows what it is about. The article was started a couple of years ago by a highly nuanced scholar who still hasn't worked out its subject area (something to do with homosexuality, pederasty, male bonding in ancient Greece and Victorian England) and meanwhile the satyrs are licking their lips in anticipation of a carnival. Oh well, it could be good material for a satire some day. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either/Or

I have conducted a reassessment of this article's GA status. I have placed the reassessment on hold as there are some points to be addressed at Talk:Either/Or/GA1#GA_Reassessment. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herodotus

Hello, I will wait for your return before going further, please take a look at the article talk page so that we can settle this question regarding his eromenos. Regards, Haiduc (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reply at the talk page. Haiduc (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Haiduc (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Resolution

I'm getting pretty sick of the constant edit reverting on the main Herodotus article. It's fairly obvious that you disagree with each others stance and are unlikely to ever find common ground. That said, I am going to ask that you try and come to some workable conclusion on the talk page without editing and reverting the main article. If this is impossible, I think I'm going to ask an admin to come in and sort this out. I've posted this on your talk pages too, just in case your not watching this page. Fol de rol troll (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: User:Dylan Thomas Sprouse

Hello Alcmaeonid. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Dylan Thomas Sprouse, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: User does exist. Thank you. Nancy talk 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List mediation

Can you provide some evidence to back your statement, "I would like to move forward and restore the list which I believe is being held up, in part, by a political agenda." I'm not aware of anyone expressing a political agenda, but then I've not looked into the full history of this dispute. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your RfC:
"Some editors want to apply a broad interpretation of the BPL rule" I see no one wanting to apply a broad interpretation. I don't even see much interpretation, mostly just quotations directly from BLP that all seem relevant and have yet to be addressed.
"there seems to be a concerted attempt at censorship going on here" I see no evidence for this. This appears to be the same accusation you made in the mediation request. Again, where's the evidence? --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? Please don't wikilawyer me. This isn't a court of law, man. I'm expressing my own personal judgment. I'm hoping that fresh eyes will look at the page and give us some insight on how to break the logjam. That's it! I'm more than willing to consider their thoughts on whether they perceive censorship or not.
From where I stand you seem to have stopped talking and dug in your heels over there. You demand that others repeat their arguments over and over while you are content to merely state "it's already been pointed out." The fact of the matter is that when you apply the BLP guidelines outside of article biographies the distinctions can become murky, subject to broad brushing and, unfortunately, (I think in this case) to political manipulations. If you look at my edit history you can readily see I have no political axe to grind. I just don't like it when others insult me by assuming I can't make up my own mind about what's said in some book. Please pardon my instinctive reaction against any species of groupthink.
I'm basically making my way in the dark here. I really don't know the ins and outs of dispute resolution. I guess this is a sure way to learn. Regards, ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't mean to upset you. Let me point out that I'm not making the accusations toward you that you are making of others, so no need to defend yourself as if you were.
You've made accusations in both a request for mediation and a RfC that unnamed editors are censoring Wikipedia based upon a political agenda. If those accusations cannot be backed with evidence, then they violate WP:NPA as well as being disruptive to consensus-making. Best to focus on content, rather than editors.
That said, I'm more than willing to elaborate on any of my comments. I see no reason to waste my time when policies and discussions are simply ignored, which seems to be the case here. The editors adding or restoring information must make a clear case for such edits, per WP:BURDEN and the multiple discussions on the topic in WP:BLP.
I've requested clarification from you and others on their viewpoints. I didn't "merely state it's already been pointed out." I wrote, twice, "If this refers to something previously written, I'm not sure what it is you're referring to. Please repeat or link to the specific answer, because I don't see it." Both requests have gone unanswered. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

As you have commented in an ANI thread or RfC relating to User:Pedant17, this is to notify you that the same user's conduct is being discussed here, along with sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Treasure of the Sierra Madre book cover.jpg
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Treasure of the Sierra Madre book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Hemingway GA

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

This user helped promote Ernest Hemingway to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Welcome back

Just noticed your name on one of my watchlist articles - nice to see you back in the saddle! I'm still on the verge of going/coming (I always seem to be thereabouts). Good editing, good luck and watch out for the bandits! McZeus (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche

Please don't revert my edits on the Nietzsche page about his influence on Freud and Jung. Freud and Jung are two of the biggest names in psychology and you will even read them sometimes in philosophy, though mostly Freud. Jung had a seminar on Nietzsche. --96.253.50.139 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alcmaeonid&oldid=395648569"