User talk:Amerindianarts

Please limit comments by directing me to the appropriate article talk page.

Objectivity

hi, i just checked the objectivity page discussion and history. I am not qualified to have a serious opinion on objectivity but i think no-one would fail to remark that you have done some really good additions to the article and that its a pity that instead of being congratulated you had to cope with criticism. By the way what do you think of the introduction to the article ["Objectivity may be considered as a synonym of neutral point of view..."]best--Greece666 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My objections to "Objectivity may be considered as a synonym of neutral point of view" are well documented on the talk page and in the history of the article, which I deleted because of the the originality of the research, and which is also not allowed at Wiki. I believe the article in its current state is malarky. Thanks. Amerindianarts 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I also might add that a "neutral point of view" in reporting, journalism, and editing according to Wiki policy is fine, but has little to do with the term "objectivity" in philosophy. In writing an article on objectivity in philosophy for Wiki the author should follow the guidelines for Wiki and the neutral point of view demanded for journalism. But such notions have little to do with objectivity as a concept of philosophy. You can check the various Encyclopedias and Dictionaries of philosophy and you won't find much on the concept, and there is a reason for this. The term is basically indefinable according to philosophic standards. For this reason it would be extremely difficult to write the article according to NPOV and without any original research, and the content of the article would also erroneous if referencing NPOV.Amerindianarts 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Casuistry

• I agree with you that the article as it is now makes little sense.
• since wikipedia is not the right place to post original research, i think the article is close to a dead-end.
• i would also like to add that i found the section on plato highly misleading. i doubt that plato had the objectivity/subjectivity distinction in mind when he talked about episteme and doxa.
• by the way, an effort is taking place to ameliorate the article on casuistry- as it is now it is quite confusing. maybe you would like to help a bit.

best--Greece666 20:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'll take a look but don't know if I can help. You are also absolutely correct on the Plato section.Amerindianarts 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Nietzsche

Hello, Ameridianarts. I noticed your attention to the Nietzsche page and how you added a little to the discussion there. If you'd like, you're more than welcome to the fray. The article could always use more competent people to contribute to it. Anyway, it's only a suggestion. Have a fun time editing and all that jazz.Non-vandal 00:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

(Text cluttering this talk page has been moved to talk page at prior link.)Universitytruth 17:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I figured you could revert if you wanted all this on your talk page after all, but moved it because you had expressed a wish not to have your talk page cluttered. Best, Universitytruth 17:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 The Barnstar of Diligence for your excellent work on List_of_German-language_philosophers Anthony Krupp 22:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk

I've made a proposal here, and am seeking feedback. Best,--Anthony Krupp 14:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 02:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Kant

Sorry that it took me a while to get to the third paragraph you were asking about. When I first saw your request on my talk page, I just saw "Kant" and jumped right in to the article. Eventually realized what you were asking for. :) I hope that my suggestions have been helpful for improving the article. Working on wikipedia is certainly a strange experience, as it attracts some strange editors (duck's breath, etc.). I can see why people often give up on wikipedia. Anyway, please let me know if I can help further with the Kant article. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks. And yes, I have come close reaching the point of no return on WIKI a couple of times. The Kant article has a ways to go for 'A' quality and I will be quite busy with other responsibilities the next few months. Citation should be top priority for any editor since the article is considered "core". I am again looking at the 1st and 2nd of Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, re: deises Begriffs, and the translations by Meiklejohn of 1 and Smith of 2. The difference being the former translates it to "conception" and the latter to "concept", which makes a considerable difference when deciding if the statement in the article "time and space, which are not concepts" is verifiable without footnoting or qualifying. I will post the change to the talk page for comment. Amerindianarts 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Any reason why not the cambridge texts in the history of philsophy edition (Guyer and Wood trans.)? They too use concept for 'begriff'.

Also, I'm coming to agree more and more that citation is paramount for the Kant article; but the article has so very far to come in terms of substance that I think it'll be awhile before its anywhere near 'A' quality anyway.... Li3crmp 20:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason for tough scrutiny of new edits.
I have the Meiklejohn and Smith editions handy for one thing. Second, to translate it as "conception" seems a better illustration of the genitive case as well as Kant's own writings (despite the "improvements" claimed for the Meiklejohn translation by others). Kant was explicit that the "original" representation of space is not a concept, and that there is but one space. Smith and translator's use of "concept" seems to contradict Kant's explanation of the construction of concepts when they use "concept of" to describe both "space", and "spaces", and Smith does. You can refer to the "concept of spaces" because in Kant the concept is a collection of intuitions, and spaces are intuitions of things where limitations are placed by the understanding within the "one space", but to use "concept" and "space" seems confusing at the very least, and "conception" better captures this point. So, comparison of these two translations suffices to illustrate this point as well as comparing Meiklejohn to Guyer, I think. I think also that the sentence in the article should be modified to the "original presentation of space is not a concept" and then a footnote added with an explanation.
Some time ago it was I who pushed for the addition of "not concepts", and it was a hot topic of discussion for awhile among the original editors of this article's current form. But I also think a detailed explanation is warranted. Amerindianarts 23:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. It seems that we were both editing the Immanual Kant article at the same time, and I caused your correction to disappear. Sorry! The vandalism that I was trying to correct was the "contribution" by 86.21.23.109 a few minutes ago. I will stop editing this article to allow you to work without interference. Please do try to eliminate that vandalism if it is still there. Again, my apologies. —Aetheling 00:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I realized what was happening. I was trying to revert the vandalism also which must have been made just prior to my first edit, but you beat me to it. Thanks Amerindianarts 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Help

{helpme} At the Immanuel Kant article there is a user User:Spinoza1111 continually adding unsourced entries. On several occasions they have been warned about Wiki policy and "if you read it, you can cite it", otherwise it must be original work. What is the best manner to proceed with a complaint against this user?? Amerindianarts 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes describes the options.--Commander Keane 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll help mediation, if you want to. You guys seem to have the problem more or less under control, or is this merely a lull? --Marinus 07:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is a lull. Haven't heard from the user since their last tirade. It would probably be helpful to watch us for awhile. Thanks. Amerindianarts 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Concensus on the article is clear and unilateral. If Spinoza1111 rears his head again, give the folks at AN/I a shout and they'll give you some help. There's really nothing to mediate since consensus and policy are clear on the matter. If things continue, run over to my talk page, give me a shout, and I'll send in the cavalry. CQJ 14:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Amerindianarts 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111, your reply from both me and the mediator is at the Cabal page. As for your comments here, they have been forwarded to an administrator. Amerindianarts 16:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Feedback requested

At Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#Criteria Thanks! --Anthony Krupp 00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Kant abandonment

Sorry I haven't been involved lately. Wiki editing is a particularly deadly form of dissertation procrastination, and I have been trying to be more disciplined lately. I have been loosely following some of the latest issues on the Kant page, but not closely enough to contribute. For better or worse, I'm sure I'll be back at some point. fi99ig 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thread involving AdamBiswanger1 was moved to its appropriate talk page. Further comments here will be ignored/deleted. Amerindianarts 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view requested

Greetings; if you have time and are inclined, please provide comments in the Outside Perspective section of this conduct-related RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Seid nuechtern und wachet.

Greetings, you might want to keep List of German-language philosophers on your watchlist for a while. Francis Schonken recently made a significant revision, which I reverted. We could of course talk about it. I really don't feel I or we own the article, but what he did to it is just ugly, IMO. It might be good for several of us to intervene as necessary. Best, -Anthony Krupp 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia

I was hoping I could get you to opine there. I've seen your good work at the list of german-language philosophers, so thought this general topic might be of concern of yours. LotLE×talk 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

False Subtlety

I don't understand what you're doing. The title of Kant's essay is Die Falsche Spitzfindigkeit der vier Syllogistische Figuren Erwiesen. This is correctly translated as The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Proved, which is the name of the Wikipedia article that I am trying to gradually create. This essay can be easily found in the small, inexpensive Barnes and Noble paperback entitled Introduction to Logic, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article's "Reference" section.Lestrade 01:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Relevant replies to this have been posted at Kant's talk page, and to user Lestrade at their talk page. English titles do not include the term "Proved". Amerindianarts 02:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity

Heh, yes, it does appear that the search engine needs to refresh first. Sometimes it can be your computer, but most of the time it's the server. — Moe 01:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for not weighing in on the Kidman discussion when you asked. I have been dealing with a personal issue at the moment which has made it hard for me to focus on the Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I have added my comments to the mediation request that you started, and I hope my statements help a little. --Yamla 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

My apologies for eliminating the tag. I looked at the history of the article and saw the reason why you eliminated the tag. I added the tag because I saw similarities in the definition and the explanations. I understand. Sr13 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I have taken the Nicole Kidman case as a volunteer mediator. Also, I removed a comment from the case page that could have otherwise implied I agreed with it. Regarding the personal attacks, I thought you handled the situation very well. Hope this clarifies the situation. Thanks, Addhoc 19:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't realise that I deleted more than I meant to. Thanks for raising this... Addhoc 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. See my reply at your talk page.Amerindianarts 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity (philosophy)

Don't whether you checked the history but the article survived because I rewrote it completely. Peer review is likely to be negative because the term cannot and is not universally applied in philosophy. The lack of resources and the amount of original research needed to make the term comprehensible without actually defining it is the reason it was nominated for deletion-twice.Amerindianarts 06:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the topic. One of the reasons I nominated the article for peer review is that I find that having multiple interested editors working on an article tends to make it more well-rounded and neutral than having a single dominant author. If you think the article is in bad shape, then all the more reason to request assistance, I guess. Certainly there are many concepts (e.g. evil, saint) that have no universal definition, but for which there are quite adequate NPOV articles. When there are multiple points of view, instead of attempting to reconcile them into a universal definition, we simply give an overview of the various schools of thoughts, usually with links to other articles for more details. -- Beland 18:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

informal vs formal fallacies

I was wondering if you could help me out on a matter of logic, is there a difference between a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy? It relates the the article on Begging the question which appears to contradict itself Talk:Begging_the_question#This_article_appears_to_contrdict_itself_tag. Thanks, Grumpyyoungman01 05:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The best way I can describe it is that formal fallacies are a violation of a rule of logic, see e.g. the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent or Denying the Antecedent. Informal fallacies I would describe as intuitive, e.g. Ad hominem arguments can be a matter of opinion as to if the content is actually attacking the person, or the person's argument, etc.Amerindianarts 08:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive!

WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless Type words!.

Invite

Gregbard 04:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

An interesting claim

I ran into a deletion of a history section of an article a few days ago by 74.142.55.239. He messaged me, claiming to be you. I have your contributions and his edits that contradict his statement. Your edits to talkpages are properly titled and signed; his edits on my talkpage are not. His claim is said in my talkpage, located here, and his talkpage with my replies are here. I just wanted to message you and let you know. Whether or not his statement is true, a reply would be appreciated from this username. I'm just letting you know as a courtesy. If that wasn't you, I can foward his claims to an admin and go from there. BeanoJosh 09:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not trying to make trouble. All I did was try and do the right thing. This whole thing stemmed from ONE revert I made from your IP. Restore it. Bye. BeanoJosh 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zuni4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zuni4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Diana Beach

As you must be involved in the Indian arts world, you are probably already familiar with the IACA, whose criteria for Indian artists is at the top of the List of Native American artists. The Indian Arts and Craft Act of 1990 makes it criminal with a possible prison sentence for someone to represent their art as being "Indian" if they are not enrolled in a state- or federally-recognized tribe or certified by an artisan of the tribe. Neither of the two Cherokee tribes in Oklahoma have certified Diane Beach. Recently, the Cherokee Nation passed the Truth in Advertising for Native Art Act (more here) forbidding the Cherokee Nation from selling or displaying works by non-enrolled-Cherokees and establishing a \$6000 fine for non-enrolled people representing themselves as Cherokees. I don't necessarily agree with all of this nor do I think it's enforceable and greatly disliked how the FBI treated such non-enrolled artists such as Jeanne Rorex Bridges, but nonetheless, there are laws in place preventing Diane Beach from representing her work as "Cherokee" or "Indian." This says nothing about her merit as person or an artist – why not create an article about her and her equine art? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I am well aware of the criteria for Indian artists at the top of the List of Native American artists, since I am the one who wrote it and put it there. Are you sure that neither of the Cherokee tribes have certified her? Have you inquired? All galleries who handle her work advertise her as Cherokee. She also organized the Seven Cherokee Women Legends Show and her work is in the The Museum of the Cherokee Indian (Cherokee, NC). Amerindianarts (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Tony Abeyta's native name is Ha So DE, meaning "Fierce Ascension". Why remove it? Do you have any examples of Deborah Iyall's work? She may have founded the Ink Clan, but is she an artist herself? Amerindianarts (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I have to object to Iyall's inclusion unless you can show me an original piece of art with her name on it that has been marketed. All I can find on her is that she teaches printmaking. That doesn't make her an artist like the rest of the artist's on the list. All the artist's on this list produced original work, meaning that expansion of the list to include "printmakers" is overkill and unnecessary. I have searched for works by Iyall, including auction records, etc., and not only can I not find a piece of original art by her that has been sold, I cannot find her name in any gallery listing or auction record anywhere. Amerindianarts (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Both CN and UKB take a dim view of nonenrolled artists. If you want to find out if artist's are Cherokee or not, call the Cherokee Heritage Center, (918) 456.6007 and they can probably help you. Even Bert Seabourne and Willard Stone didn't get certified as Cherokee artisans. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Bill and Traci Rabbit are both enrolled in the Cherokee Nation. Another source for info is the Cherokee Artist's Association. Uyvsdi (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I don't know Bill Rabbit personally and have never seen his tribal enrollment card, but he was the Cherokee Art Market's 2007 poster artist last. Cherokee Nation Enterprises runs that market and they demand the Cherokee artists be enrolled in a federally recognized tribe. He has also won awards at the Cherokee Homecoming show at the Cherokee Heritage Center, which checks for enrollment. Perhaps there is another reason why he doesn't show at Santa Fe Indian Market??? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Implication

Hi, I noticed you made a few edits to obversion. Perhaps you can answer a query I just left there. Is the obverse of

${\displaystyle A\Rightarrow B}$

just

${\displaystyle -B\Rightarrow -A}$ ?

--Michael C. Price talk 10:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your question is answered here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Obversion. Amerindianarts (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've left a follow-up query. --Michael C. Price talk 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Your question is again answered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Obversion. Thanks.Amerindianarts (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Artists

Diana Beach is not enrolled in either a federally or state recognized tribe. The Chickamauga Cherokee, White River Band are neither - look them up, but since you insist upon her inclusion, I've moved on, since obviously there are innumerable other things to work on. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

You are very wrong. Look her up in Lester's and check your sources more thoroughly. Amerindianarts (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Lester's contains Jimmie Durham and Yeffe Kimball, among other famous non-Indians. "You are very wrong" is not a particularly convincing reference. She's fairly clear claiming membership to an organization that is neither a state or federally recognized tribe. But I'm not a card-Nazi. There are other nonenrolled artists listed, but they a) have provable Native descent b) are an active part of their respective tribal communities, so I'm hardly going to single them out for removal. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Not sure of what inferences can be drawn from "card-Nazi" and the mockery it seems to make of the Act, but I'm not one of those either. I do, however, have respect for what the Fed and the Act are trying to do. Because she is claiming membership in an organization that is neither a state or federally recognized doesn't mean she is not enrolled. That is an invalid assumption on your part. She is also Delaware and Shawnee and acknowledges to point blank questioning that she is an enrolled member. I am not about to call her liar. Lester's has mistakes, that is certain, but 99.9% of the time he sourced the rolls. Amerindianarts (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Card-Nazis a slang term, but probably not the best to use online cavalierly – something's don't translate well into other communities. Anyway, totally unconvinced but don't really care. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

What does "other communities" mean? Amerindianarts (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Other communities: casual conversation/hanging out with other Indian artist friends vs. public forums like the internet, i.e. I shouldn't use slang. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)