User talk:Eboepple

Welcome!

Hello, Eboepple, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gryllida 02:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki markup

I've noticed the article User:Eboepple/Michael Krausz you're creating. Please note that wiki markup is not HTML, as outlined at Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. Example, '==heading 1==', not <big><b>heading 1</b></big>. HML works too, but is generally discouraged for a number of reasons, including but not limited to ease of use, automatic processing, and, for instance, '===' headings make an automatic table of contents appear. Enjoy your stay at Wikipedia! Gryllida 02:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:End of texts.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:End of texts.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Krausz2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Krausz2.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Eboepple. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 02:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

17 September 2010

Hello? I have now uploaded a graphic "End_of_texts3.jpg" and sent in the copyright permission from the artist to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I also copied the copyright permission into the information section for the uploaded image. Since I'd like to get this page off my draft and into Wiki but without the automatic "candidate for deletion" message under the image, can you tell me if that goes away automatically at some point, or if I have the authority to remove that template from the page? Thanks you! (Not even sure to whom I'm writing or if this is going where it's intended... Wiki is harder than it looks!) Eboepple (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Krausz

Hello. Thank you for your recent edits for Michael Krausz, and welcome to Wikipedia. I recently reverted a number of good faith edits you made, mostly because of an indiscriminate listing of all works authored or co-authored or edited bu Krausz. In the process, there were a few edits unintentionally reverted, which I will do the work to replace (fortunately, on Wikipedia no edits are ever erased on the history or otherwise inaccessible). Although there is no specific rule on listing works for academics, if you look around at the pages of other philosophers, such as Martin Heidegger or Hans-Georg Gadamer, or less prominent ones like Maxine Greene you will not see every journal article and paper given listed. Generally, their most popular and notable works are listed, or only monographs and secondary sources.I think to keep with general practices on listing works by philosophers, we should stick to major monographs and secondary sources. Certainly, notable works of art or music could also be included. If this is a sticking point, we can request a 3PO. Thanks!--Lhakthong (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried to put this on your talk page before I saw that you posted here. So I'm trying this again. I just read that you're "new" to Wiki? You surely don't seem new when you trashed hours of my work to improve the Michael Krausz page without bothering to contact me. (Yup, I've been patient, and now I'm losing my patience!) I used the pages for other philosophers to see that they do, indeed,have more extensive bibliographies than what you left on the page. Moreover, I converted "external links" to references and in-line links, removing those directly connected with Michael Krausz as suggested in the templates added to the top of the page. Meanwhile, I have no idea who you are, who appointed you God to decide what bibliographhical references should be cited, or even how to retrieve the work you deleted. Are you on some sort of authoritative board? If so, I need to know what your problem is so that I can fix it, but mostly, I need to know how to retrieve the earlier version that you trashed. (I didn't know I should have copied out the code onto some other media to back it up.)

Good to know that old version is available. I NEED TO KNOW HOW TO FIND IT!!! But I must tell you that this is a VERY selective bibliography. WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE HOW MANY ITEMS (AMONG HUNDREDS!) SHOULD BE INCLUDED! I did not include more than half a dozen journal articles. Books and edited books are quite common. (see Joseph Margolis)

PLEASE REVERT EVERYTHING AND I WILL THEN BE GLAD TO HEAR YOUR IDEAS FOR REVISION. BUT YES, DO INCLUDE HIS WORKS ON ART AND MUSIC AND DO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS NO SPECIFIC RULE! IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE HIS CV, i'M SURE IF YOU CONTACT HIM, HE'D BE GLAD TO SEND IT. Eboepple (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand your frustration. Please keep in mind that no one has any more authority to edit a page than anyone else. There are general guidelines for editors to follow, but ultimately editing a consensus-based. I suggested a 3PO above, because there are only two editors for this page, and it seems we disagree on what is appropriate for an article of this type. To answer your other question, if you click on the "history" tab, you should be able to see the list of all edits done to the page since its creation. You can always undo edits of other editors, but be careful not to violate the 3 revert rule. Generally, an edit is made, and someone can revert it. If a reversion is made, discussion is taken to the "talk page" to try and hammer out differences without causing undue disruption to the page. If there is a stalemate, outside help is sought (Thus the 3PO). Any further conversation about the content of the article should be taken to the "Talk" page for the article. Thanks!--Lhakthong (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find this helpful: Wikipedia Dispute Resolution. If you have any other questions, I will do what I can to help answer them. I'm not an expert on everything, but I can answer basic questions. --Lhakthong (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to revert; neither do I believe I should have to find the way to do that when you are the one who trashed my work. Do you understand how many hours of my time and effort you arbitrarily trashed? Do you get it (I did read the resolution page; I'm not supposed to be uncivil in my words despite your incivility in action). Are you a philosopher? Have you read or studied any material on relativism, interpretation, Krausz's work? Instead of playing ping pong with what you or I think "should" be included (its VERY easy to get a dozen reputable editors to tell you you're wrong; you will not agree, any more than some will never agree that man walked on the moon or that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist)... do you have any credentials to support your position as an editor for anything academic in this field? (Yes, I do. I edit many philosophical works by philosohpers you find on Wiki.)

Getting back to reverting; I tried to revert and got a message that I cannot do so. So I must again ask you to restore EVERYTHING. After you do, and I have the bibliography to see as I prepared it, I will be glad to discuss with you, item by item, why you think each should be deleted. (I will, of course, presume that you will have read each one in full to know what you're talking about with regard to making a judgement about whether it is of worth to note.) Eboepple (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please allow me to start by apologizing for allowing my frustration vent evinced by all caps or by suggesting that you had to authority to trash my work. (Frankly, while you do have the authority to do so, I still politely suggest that the manner in which you did so could have been improved immensely.) Next, let me say that I did request review by a third party, explaining your suggestions. Although it was not a registered Wiki editor, I hope you will approve of my approaching Michael Krausz in person to review the content I have and what you suggested. He knows that I will be adding references to the narrative. But in general, he has "approved" of the stripped down version you suggest (as it now shows). (He's actually quite nice and blows his stack far less often and more gently than I do, but I edit his work and have produced several of his books w/out losing my head at all!) IF you wish to suggest futhther revisions, may I ask that you contact me directly? I assure you that I will take your suggestions under serious consideration and respond quickly. To contact me directly, please use eboepple (at) cox.net. Thanks. Eboepple (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the venting. Being new here can be a very daunting experience. The purpose of asking for ~~3PO~~ WP:3PO is not to ask the person about whom the article is written for their opinion. In fact, this is very clearly a conflict of interest, although I appreciate his approval of my edits. I sincerely appreciate the invitation to converse privately, but editing Wikipedia is public process, and remember that the articles are owned by no one (although the server space is owned by Wikipedia). We should discuss any disagreements we have on the talk page and ask for other editors' opinions if we need them. It is very good to know that Wikipedia has an expert on the topic to help with content accuracy and references.--Lhakthong (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I re-placed the references tag. I explained on the article's talk page. Don't worry that the section will be deleted or anything like that. Usually, a tag stays up for a while to allow time for editors to make the necessary changes, and I would guess that if the material is accurate, not one will challenge it. For example, the Phi Beta Kappa page, which has been up for years, had a tag placed at the head of the article in May.--Lhakthong (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had no conflict of interest in mind. Michael keeps me grounded about how much to fight an issue and when to draw back. I deleted that ref. tag inadvertantly and couldn't remember what it looked like to replace it. I'd still be extremely happy if I just heard you admit that your method contributed to the frustration. I don't mind airing the dialogue in the Wall Street Journal if that's necessary. I just don't like having to keep running back to this page to see if there is anything added. I don't have time to babysit a "talk" page. Finally, any explanation you put anywhere (<,I explained on the article's talk page.>>) is another place neither I, nor readers, will be running to read. The purpose is to get the information, not to make a system that's so cumbersome that nobody will bother to use it. (or in my dreams that's the way any system should be!) Eboepple (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep the article and/or the talk page in question on your watchpage. That way, when you log in, you will immediately know if there have been any changes. The fact that you don't like having to monitor a page has no bearing here. That's part of editing an article on Wikpedia. For example, I have 80 pages on my watchlist. I don't complain about it. If I don't want to be involved in one, I just take it off my watchlist and ignore it. Although I agree that the system should not be so cumbersome that that nobody will use it. On the other hand, however, Wikipedia is not anarchy; we are all here to build an encyclopedia, and that means having generally agreed upon expectations about behavior and content one of which is working towards consensus in editing pages. If I might offer some advice: expect that your work will be edited and changed, and expect that the time you spend editing an article might get reverted. Not because I or anyone else plans to give you a hard time but because that's what happens on Wikipedia. If you don't like that idea, I genuinely suggest you disengage from Wikipedia. Otherwise, you're bound to encounter even more frustration. Certainly, because this is not anarchy, if you think someone is abusing their editing privileges or otherwise not making good faith efforts to edit, you can always ask an administrator to get involved by following the dispute resolution guidelines. --Lhakthong (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page on article ownership has some good material in it as well.--Lhakthong (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points; taken under consideration. Thanks. (BTW, adding the references today).Eboepple (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Krausz.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Krausz.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.brynmawr.edu/news/2008-03-27/orchestra.shtml. As a copyright violation, File:Krausz.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Krausz.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Krausz.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Krausz.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Krausz.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]