User talk:71.247.12.83

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

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

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (71.247.12.83) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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 this page. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on existentialism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Existentialism, Phenomenology and Ontology[edit]

This is to let you know that I have asked for outside opinions at the [Administrators' Noticeboard] with respect to the controversial edits you have been making at the above three articles without providing sources or working for consensus. As you will see from the Outside Opinion posted on the Existentialism Talk Page, these are prerequisites to Wikipedia editing. I hope you can become more familiar with those policies, so that we can all work successfully together.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I have reviewed your recent edit at the Phenomenology article ([here]. I sincerely believe that your intentions are good and that you do not wish to vandalize articles, but it is important that you understand that several expressions used in your edit make no sense in normal English (bold below), and that the edit is also philosophically inaccurate. As above, it is vitally important that you seek consensus for these edits and provide sources, time-consuming as that may be. Otherwise, however inadvertently, the result is to vandalize parts of the article and make it unreadable.

Phenomenology in philosophy is a study - begun in the 20th century - of phenomena (from Greek, meaning "that which appears"), as they are perceived or consciously experienced in their subjectivity (without prejudice or incidential interpretation); unlike ontology - devoted to studying of being - or unlike objectivity qualifying appearance, as potentially misleading.

Neither "consciousnessly experienced" nor "consciousness experienced" are phrases permitted in English. "Incidential" is not a word, and the obvious alternative, "incidental" makes no sense in that context. The phrase "objectivity qualifying appearance" is unintelligible. I will address the philosophical inaccuracies on the article's Talk Page.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

  • Right except for "consciously experienced" ("consciously experienced") that seems to be correct (adjective is linked to the corresponding noun/term). Thanks. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Despite repeated requests, including from uninvolved editors, you are continuing to edit the Phenomenology article without seeking consensus and without providing any sources whatsoever. Please use the Talk Page to explain your changes and give citations for them.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You have twice reverted the introduction of the Phenomenology article to include unsourced claims which other editors find controversial. Making minor changes to correct mispellings and grammar does not mean your re-insertion of the challenged material does not constitute a reversion.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

  • You contradict your own statement above saying that: "I have reviewed your recent edit at the Phenomenology article ([here]. I sincerely believe that your intentions are good [...], but it is important that you understand that [...] the edit is also philosophically inaccurate." And, I corrected those (technical) inaccuracies, as you called them "philosophically inaccurate". B.t.w., I hope that you understand that "philosophically inaccurate" is not the same, as "inaccuracy about philosophy" you probably meant, because my edit was philosophically accurate (per my philosophy), but only technically (seriously and not only grammatically) erroneous (good catch that English is not my 1st language..., so what?). Sincerely. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Whatever it is you're trying to say, the point remains that your edits of philosophical articles are disputed as inaccurate. In such cases, as I understand it, you do not continue wantonly editing articles: You have to seek consensus in the talk pages, post proposals for edits, etc.
That English isn't your first language shouldn't matter per se: It isn't my first language either (what is your first language anyway?). What matters is that your English appears to be so bad that I am slightly surprised that you saw yourself fit to edit the English Wikipedia. I must also say that from what I could decipher from your edits, your comprehension of the philosophies you're trying to say something about is lacking to say the least. If this is solely due to the language barrier is hard to tell, but in any case I would encourage you to seek consensus for any future edits before editing.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Sourcing the lead: Please take the time to check out [WP:LEAD] re sources: "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article."KD Tries Again (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
For the last time, the crux of my involvement in editing has been a search for solution to remedy you gross lack of consistency with the principal that the leads: should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, please see the article's Talk Page for philosophical inaccuracies in your proposed edit. I do not wish to be at all disrespectful about your way of expressing yourself in writing, but editors have found it necessary to point out that you are using words and phrases which are not really intelligible. Discussing your proposed changes on the relevant Talk Pages first will help circumvent this problem.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
So, what that sometimes they are not intelligible, please? You could make them intelligible, if you liked... . The subjects have been discussed for months and nothing good has happened yet with the lead. So, what is the point of participating in your fruitless way, please? You do amuse yourself on the talk pages and I will try to actually fix the leads. Please, do not forget that every summary (lead) is an approximation, so it does not accurately present the subject (which is impossible), but only makes an impression that - in extreme case - may even be quite inaccurate, if it is an effective explanation written in accessible style to invite a reading. Funny thing is that your failure seems to be, as if you were looking at the landscape of subjects using the magnifying glass. Your English is impeccable, and the other one speaks German, I presume, and has "iron" logic, but I have to deny your suggestion to amuse on the talk pages. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You seem all too keen to mention other people's "inconsistencies" while you let your own slip by: "the leads: should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article" contradicts your lack of concern for own lack of intelligibility: "So, what that sometimes they are not intelligible, please?" Your next sentence, that we could "make them intelligible" also contradicts the very notion of unintelligibility: If something is unintelligible, it is impossible to make sense out of it. It also somehow implies that what you've written, although unintelligible, is better than any other suggestions -- so good, in fact, that other people should take the time to read, study, spend lots of time on gaining a comprehension of your wisdom. And yet, from what I can understand of your contributions, you do not display a particularly good comprehension of the subject at hand.
What has been discussed on the talk pages hasn't been discussed for months. Edits have been made without this showing up on the talk pages. This is because so far, most of the edits have been intelligible and representative of the subject at hand. When it comes to your edits, however, they have been contested by other editors. In such cases, other rules apply, and you will have to abide by them, no matter what your personal opinion is (it is, after all, your personal opinion that is contested).Der Zeitgeist (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you write in bad faith or - which I doubt - you still do not understand the crux of my involvement by trying to demonstrate trivial contradictions and inconsistencies of my arguments. I do not reedit your leads because of unintelligibility only, because of their severe content inadequacy, namely, a lack of clear and simply defining the subjects 1st sentences, and also - as secondary - the murky, highly technical, and a layman inaccessible style (I do understand, what you are saying). Had your leads included sufficient definitions up front, I would have only changed the style, to my best abilities, and not the entire content, structure and syntax.

I presume that unintelligibility of my texts refers to capabilities of average people and not to your own; you should have sufficient expertise to understand my intentions despite the deficiencies of my texts the same way I understand yours despite my objections. So, you should be able to correct my errors, because you have necessary capabilities, and it seems that you do not do so for a lack of good will. It seems you do not care about accessibility of the leads to laymen per WP:LEAD, but mostly about your own egos. So, you pointed out to my easy correctable language and minor technical errors, as a pretext to discredit my proposal rather then to admit inadequacies of yours per WP:LEAD, but my pointed out errors do not justify yours! I expect you to continue in bad faith, but hope that you find in your cold hearts the higher purpose to serve the people and not to pettily concentrate on my spelling mistakes. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)... and apparently my IP address changed from 71.247.12.83 (talk)

Please be reminded again of Wiki etiquette and refrain from comments about other editors' egos. User:Der Zeitgeist is not alone in being unable to understand, at a basic level, the edits you have been making. The existing edits, while poor, are at least legible. Beyond that, I and other editors have taken the trouble to point out on the relevant Talk Page where your edits have been flat out wrong. Suggesting that Husserlian phenomenology concentrates on phenomena "in their subjectivity" is not a minor technical error; nor is confusing "world" and "earth" in Heidegger's philosophy. I am sure you are attempting to improve the leads in good faith, but time is being wasted by your position that as an "advanced editor" (albeit with no account), you do not need to provide citations for disputed claims or seek consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
O.K. (for God's sake), it is not your ego, but (surprisingly) you do not get it (so, how you can edit here?)! The 1st sentences of the leads are meant especially for laymen including their language. In layman language (see Webster's Thesaurus) a synonym to "world" is "earth". Got it? ...and, please, do not come back to this issue again... . The unfortunate phrase 'phenomena "as experienced in their subjectivity" ' was intended to substitute the phrase "experience in its purely subjective aspect" (not clear enough), but my English failed to include the word "subjective" properly in a simple construction, and contrasted with "objective" intuitively recognizable, and, so, helpful in a simple definition. Please, do not even try to mention noetic and noematic content, because they do not belong there. Regardless that both belong to the subject, only one can be mentioned for convenience. 1st sentences are not subject to arithmetic or proportionality. Simplicity and clarity are the objective, and not proportionality. There was a famous request posted to Hillel to teach Torah, while the men is standing on one foot. Hillel replied: "'That, which is hateful to you do not do to others' ... the rest is commentary." You do not find in the Bible that phrase or anything similar, so technically it is not accurate, but summarizes everything. A summary can be creative, and yours is not, but let it be. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The lead needs to be clear, but not misleading. The difficulty with referring to "earth" was that, by quite unnecessarily introducing the (highly) technical Heideggerian term "Dasein" into the [Existentialism] lead you created the implication that "earth" was also used in the Heideggerian sense (it was in the same sentence), and hence used wrongly. If you check the talk page, you'll see I cautioned against discussing noema/noesis in the lead, so I don't really follow your argument.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again.
O.K., so you use all good methods, only... the end result is inadequate, because the leads are inaccessible to laymen, and - so - against that main purpose of Wikipedia you seem to ignore! Look at the lead of ontology, how accessible it is..., unlike of existentialism with all its accuracy (who cares for accuracy, when a definition is murky and difficult)! Dasein lays at the core of existentialism since it means "existence", isn't it, please? Technically you right, practically you wrong, because ineffective! That has always been my only point. See the story about Hillel above. Simplicity in the 1st sentences is, what counts first of all and yours do not have. Sincerely. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The difference between ontology and existentialism is large enough to allow for a simple explanation of the difference in the leads: Existentialism, as a whole, is more specialised than ontology as a whole. With more specialisation comes more detail, and with more detail comes more complexity; while ontology as a whole is easy to write a lead for, the ontology of one philosopher may be more difficult to write a lead for, and the case is usually further complicated if one intends to write about the ontology of a school or group of philosophers with similar or converging, but not identical views on the subject. If you add to this that existentialism is a field that isn't limited to the philosophical study of existence, a field that extends into literature, music, art, etc., the case isn't looking good for formulating a concise definition. If leads are to be immediately accessible to laymen at any cost, and if they can be edited by anyone to make them so, you can head on over to the pink noise article or the chiral perturbation theory article and do your good deed there.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
And there you are wrong. Despite that between each pair of closest natural numbers there is an infinite number of real numbers, the definition of both can be equally simple and accessible to the laymen. The same pertains to the leads of existentialism and phenomenology. Their 1st sentences can be equally simple as about ontology just to easily describe the basics accessible to and encouraging the laymen, but the next sentences about the specialization, schools, applications, etc. can differ and be written differently. Your way to "sell" everything in the 1st complex and murky (technical) sentences overwhelming the laymen, you have done in existentialism and phenomenology, is a mistake. And you stick to that obvious mistake persistently and stubbornly. Most likely, it is a cover-up for your lack of abilities to write the leads properly, as described above and required by WP:LEAD. Too bad! 141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Hi, 83. Thanks for your feedback on my talk page. I will start by repeating that I simply do not have time at present to act directly on this issue. But I will keep an eye on it, for interest's sake.

You will find citations in the introduction of articles in which the nature of the subject is at all controversial. See Philosophy, Truth, Epistemology,Metaphysics, Aesthetics and so on. But providing citations that support a view that is disputed will only do if you also point out why it is disputed and what the alternative view is - that is, if you and your fellow editors build a consensus.

I stand by my comment on Talk:Existentialism. The issue can be resolved by the provision of citations, and by a little bit of consensus building. That comment was certainly not intended to take sides. Routledge was at hand, so I grabbed it and quoted the first paragraph as an example of the sort of material that ought to be cited in the introduction.

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Why create an account? Banno (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but we all know that and a generalization does not solve anything... . E.g. citations are needed only, where they belong to, please. With all the respect, we all know, what the subjects are and we argue about, what of that to put into the leads and how. Thanks anyway. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. Again, may I recommend that you create an account? Especially as you now appear to be editing under another IP. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? Banno (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
...and apparently yes, my IP address changed from 71.247.12.83 (talk), but I believe anonymous editors should have the same rights, as those with permanent accounts, which does not change the merit of inadequacy of the leads that need to be corrected and the present editors apparently cannot handle it, because such corrections require not more than just a few hours/days (the same way JimWae did with Ontology on Oct. 10), and had they been able to do corrections, they would have corrected it a long time ago. What they do is waiting for someone to correct the leads per their narrow vision preferences (which are the obstacle preventing them to get good results on the 1st place) and - in the meantime - they amuse themselves on the talk pages by writing trivialities, which leads to nowhere (just read them). Sincerely. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Be that as it may, the fact remains that you are working without the benefit of the various tools available to those with an account. As that is your choice, I'll say no more on the issue. Banno (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the Existentialism lead has been fixed, and the Phenomenology lead will be fixed shortly. It is confusing that you are using more than one IP address; opening an account need not compromise anonymity.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"had they been able to do corrections, they would have corrected it a long time ago": No. First of all, in many cases, with wiki editing, it's not necessarily a primary activity for the editors (if it were, they would not have been able to spend time gaining the knowledge required to edit). In other words, the basis for edits isn't necessarily found with the specific purpose of editing wikipedia as a goal (rather, it is found while doing what one normally does). Secondly, if you know a subject well, formulating pithy descriptions isn't always easy. As I lamented in connection with the phenomenology-article, it's difficult to add something to key terminology because it could easily get out of hand: Everything is interwoven with something else, so you'd have to have quite a bit of time on your hands if you were to give more detailed descriptions.
In light of this, it is no contradiction that time is spent discussing wrong edits in stead of expanding the articles: While one has a clear idea of what the article is about, it doesn't have to be readily available to one as an encyclopaedic definition, which requires pithy. This means that one can recognise error while not being able to formulate a concrete alternative; the requirements for leads, for instance, do not allow the editor the level of detail he at present feels is required for an understanding of the subject. Although all this "discussion" both could and would have been spent doing something more worth-while (perhaps one could find the time to explicitly focus on a wiki article, finding proper formulations, etc., instead?), it wouldn't necessarily have been spent actually editing.
In short, sure, these discussions are disruptive to the editing process, and sure we could have edited the articles to "make them better" at some earlier point in time -- I know I have tried -- but this could should not be held to mean that we already know what the article should be like, and are currently spending our time being "amused" by the petty minds of mere IP editors. Rather, it should be taken to mean that while a proper formulation could have been found at some earlier point in time, it still remains "unfound."Der Zeitgeist (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine! 141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)