User talk:Harnad

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

Self Identification[edit]

User:Harnad is Stevan Harnad

Transdisciplinary Vigilantism[edit]

Hello there. About transdisciplinary vigilantism: a couple of points. While this is potentially of interest about the workings of academia, the proprieties of non-peer review, it is not really adequate to leave the reader in suspense about the cases you cite. Second, if this is a neologism, you should know that Wikipedia is not a neologism-friendly place. A more laborious article title may be needed. Charles Matthews 19:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Categorical perception[edit]

Hi —

I've just listed the article Categorical perception as a possible copyright violation. Wikipedia is lisenced under GFDL, and cannot include any copyrighted works, including article abstracts taken from the web. If you disagree with this, feel free to let me know on my talk page. If you actually want to work on the article, I've been slowly preparing the article myself in my sandbox (I wrote my batchelor's thesis on CP). You can feel free to collaborate there, or re-write your own article without taking from the web.

Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Urgent: If you are, in fact, the author of the article in question -- and solely hold the copyright to it, I strongly advise you to read the GNU Free Documentation License article and the text of the GNU Free Documentation License before you commit yourself. You are, in effect, donating your writing and your copyright to the project, and would no longer have control over what is done with it. Please read the article and the licensing text for more precise detail, and please be certain it is what you want to do. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Article has been nominated for proposed deletion. — RJH (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OA section[edit]

The OA articles have been moved back to the right pages and mostly restored. I have a little more to do on Monday and, probably, Tuesday. DGG 08:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorical Perception - internal links[edit]

As part of Project Wikify, I am taking a look at the Categorical Perception article you started. This article is well-formatted, and someone cleaned up the references, but it still needs internal links pointing to other Wikipedia articles where appropriate. In my opinion, this is all that is needed to remove the Wikify tag, and I figure you're going to do a better job of it than I would since you wrote the article. Adam 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Our recent changes to "Symbol Grounding"[edit]

Hi. I tried to stay in agreement with your papers. I'm just wondering if you read what I wrote in the "Symbol Grounding" discussion area and if you think that should make a difference to what you think is incoherent where I believed to be attaining better coherence. Just for my information, in order for me to gain a better understanding of your edits. Valeria B. Rayne 03:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi: It's a tricky and subtle problem, and you really have to think about it carefully, and a lot. A sure clue to the fact that you are getting lost or fooling yourself is if the language gets complicated or ritualistic: Symbols are like words, to a first approximation. Words have referents, objects they stand for. And combined in sentences, the sentences are descriptions that are either true or false (or ill-formed or undecidable). The symbols inside a robot that can do with words (and the things they refer to) just as we do, are grounded. Whether they are also meaningful depends on whether the robot also feels. We can objectively test grounding, but we cannot objectively test feeling. That's all there is to to it. Harnad

  • "Lost" meaning a degree of interest of course. Cognitive science is such a large domain with many variously interested subdomains and their development programs, and "meaning" itself is a nontrivial notion by accounts prevalent in the literature. It only makes sense, in the interests of empiricism, logical validity, and the acknowledgment of the multiplicity of programs, that a grounded symbol system has meaning autonomy, with conscious autonomy a separate if unrelated problem. Your papers explicitly indicate an understandably and logically modest pardon of consciousness, so denying mindspace a larger meaningspace, one not presupposed (for how else do we determine grounding if not for meaning autonomy, unless grounding is related neither to meaning nor to consciousness?), just wasn't expected. Valeria B. Rayne 04:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For instance, you say, "If the meaning depended on an external interpreter, then the system would not be autonomous." Yet you insist on being the very external interpreter who identifies an autonomous grounded symbol system that imputes meaning to its symbols. Hence, for meaning – which is precisely what makes the system autonomous precisely according to you – to depend on you is to beg the question. I hope you might read what had been my final revision charitably. Valeria B. Rayne 04:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

open access nomenclature[edit]

Please see my note on moving the main article to Open access (publishing). This is in conformity with your correct opinion that Open access publishing, the previous title, is ambiguous, and can mean the method of publishing open access journals, as well as repository archiving. (There was multiple objection to using just "Open access", as was originally the case., and that is not really one of the options any more.) But there is an additional question. "self-archiving" does not seem to me to be an adequate term for the general process of "green OA" -- and I think you have said pretty much the same on your list recently---it hardly describes the compulsory process of depositing archival copies of the preprint or the postprint in centralized repositories, carried out now often by the publisher, as with the NIH method, or by the university in an institutional archive. I do not see what is "self" about it. Can you think of a more general term? DGG (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The mandates (by funder or employer) are on the fundee or employee who is the author of the paper whose deposit is mandated, no one else. Whether the mandated deposit is done by the author, the author's spouse, the author's secretary, the author's student, the author's librarian or the author's publisher is completely irrelevant: it is all self-archiving, of the author's own paper, at the author's own (mandated) behest, whether done by the author's own fingers or by proxy fingers, because the "self" refers to the (mandated) author (whose own paper it is being mandated must be deposited). I'm the one paying my own credit card bills even if I authorize an automatic electronic transfer from my bank. Harnad


Proposed deletion of Scholarly Skywriting, Student Skywriting[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Scholarly Skywriting, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

neologism

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

I have also proposed Student Skywriting for deletion for the same reason.

Dialectric (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

American Scientist Open Access Forum[edit]

Moved. If you need to move a page in the future, all you have do is click on the "move" tag at the top of the article; that should bring you to a page where you can type in the desired new name. You may occasionally run into problems with some pages (for example, if you want to move "Page X" to "Page Y", but "Page Y" already exists), but those can be brought to an administrator's attention. Most pages you should be able to move without difficulty. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ágnes Heller[edit]

Attention Wikipedia editors: There is a very controversial, current paragraph in the Ágnes Heller entry. The prior version was extremely biassed toward the right wing view, portraying Heller as being guilty of fraud. In reality, she is only being accused of fraud (by the right-wing government, of which she is a severe critic). According to the left-liberal and international press, Heller is the target of a systematic harassment campaign and is not guilty of anything. I inserted two current references to that. Wikipedia editors should not allow those to be removed, again unbalancing the paragraph.Stevan Harnad 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

See this: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.79.8 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

PLoS ONE[edit]

Hello Harnad. Thanks for your message. The reason I removed that section is not because I have an issue with criticism of OA, its simply because it is not written and sourced in a manner appropriate for an encyclopaedia. The section is editorial in tone and form, not neutral and descriptive. Who says it is natural to raise questions or that it is fair to say time will tell? It is not our place to make such assumptions.

  • Darren, I'll re-write it, once. I don't agree at all with what you say about tone and form, nor about "our place" (who on earth are "we"). But I have enough command of the english language to be capable of making the same point in another tone and form... Stevan Harnad 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If Poynder is a notable critic (and you would have to make a very good case that he is, given it is sourced to a blog and they are very rarely considered to be a reliable source) then state what his criticism is, explicitly, and attribute it to him.

  • See DGG's assessment of Poynder in User talk:Crusio in the thread on PloS ONE. -- But I will write out the criticism longhand (or rather, even longer-hand, since it is already written out longhand in the text as it is) -- one more time. Stevan Harnad 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone else notable states that "time will tell" then attribute that to him or her - encyclopaedias describe what other notable people say, we don't adopt their opinions ourselves.

  • Time will tell whether or not pay-to-publish will significantly reduce peer-review standards; the evidence to date is not yet enough to be able to draw a firm conclusion. Now how do "we" say that, Darren? I'm happy with any locution you find appropriate in "tone and form." I'd just like to get the literal propositional content (viz. "it's too early to tell") out there. Poynder has gathered valid empirical evidence of peer-review lapses in PLoS ONE. The fact that authors are paying for publication and the journal is selling publication to the author for a fee (unlike a subscription journal) is a valid reason for prima facie concern about a causal connection. But it is still too early to know for sure whether there is indeed a causal connection, and how strong. I think "it's too early to tell" says this clearly, but less long-windedly. But I am happy to spell out the obvious -- one more time. Stevan Harnad 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I would note that it appears the second source is to an article written by you. It is rarely a good idea to quote yourself on Wikipedia. If a number of editors have been querying this section, its probably a good idea to listen to them, as there is a potential conflict of issue here.

  • If you look at the article's history, you will see that the reason a number of editors were querying this article was not because of the reference to my D-Lib paper on no-fault peer review, because my paper was not cited until I did this very edit, trying to restore the Poynder criticism (which was being cited, and then deleted and then restored and then deleted). The deletions were on the grounds that it was just a blog article -- even though it is written by a distinguished evidence-based journalist with extensive experience analyzing and chronicling open access who happens to be blogging his work -- instead of continuing to sell it to magazines as work for hire -- on principle. But Poynder's article also happened to be critical of pay-to-publish journals in general (and hence of PLoS ONE in particular). That it was deleted simply because it was a blog article is made unlikely by the fact that another blog article -- by Heather Morrison -- was not called into question. It is much more likely that what set off the quest for grounds for deletion was the fact that it was critical, suggesting that pay-to-publish may compromise peer review standards. There may indeed be a "conflict of interest issue" there, but it is not about my article; it is about Poynder's criticism of pay-to-publish journals. It was for that reason that I restored the Poynder citation, counterbalanced (for neutral POV) by another article of my own, suggesting why and how peer-review standards could easily prevented from being compromised by pay-to-publish: no-fault peer review (in other words, pay-for-peer-review, regardless of outcome, not pay-to-publish. Stevan Harnad 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to re-write this section to for tone and content then please go ahead. But If it remains written in the current form, I will remove it again in a few days. Rockpocket 20:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oh dear. I shall certainly endeavour to do my very best to do what's proper and fitting, Darren, mindful of your awesome powers! Stevan Harnad 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the article now adopts an encyclopaedic tone. The great thing with the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit is just that: anyone can edit it. Awesome powers are not required. Rockpocket 17:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I do always sign with Stevan Harnad 02:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC) but for some reason it does not always register. Here, I'll do it again now. Stevan Harnad 02:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:SIGLINK, your signature must include a link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page, so that people know where to find and respond to you - there's no way for an editor reading a comment to know that Stevan Harnad has a user page and talk page at User:Harnad. (You left a comment on my page and I had to dig through the page history to find out what your actual username was, so that I could come here and respond to you.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

April 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ágnes Heller. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ágnes Heller article urgently needs editorial attention and arbitration. There are ongoing political events in Hungary on which opinion is highly polarized. Individuals are being vilified "Hungarian Academicians Blast Government Over Inquiry Into Research Funds" American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ScienceInsider 4 February 2011 without factual basis or justification. This happens in the Hungarian partisan press, and the practice is now spreading to Wikipedia entries. There are far more people ready to smear -- and smear hidden behind a mask of anonymity Quod Erat ad Demonstrandum (QED) -- than there are people able to defend against smears. Stevan Harnad 03:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Registry of Open Access Repositories[edit]

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) I've added 4 out of the 3010 references to ROAR in Google Scholar (1,140,000 references on Google) as evidence of notability. (2) I've undone your redirect, because you inadvertently redirected ROARMAP to ROAR and those are two different registries, and entries. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad 16:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

consciousness[edit]

Hi -- I just want to express appreciation for the improvements you've made. I intend to continue working on this as time permits, and any further improvements are welcome, as is any feedback that might occur to you -- it's very difficult around here to get expert feedback. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Looie496, thanks for the feedback. Actually, what inspired me to have a go were all the recent traces of the useful and timely edits you yourself were doing on Consciousness. The "See also" items include some very closely related ones that could also use your touch (to shake up some of the philosopher-jargon stiffness and to shake _out_ some of the sci-fi and spookophile voodoo). (I have a question for you whose answer would interest me very much: since you are obviously a person with expertise and qualifications, why do you prefer to edit anonymously rather than using your name? In special cases I can see the usefulness of anonymous editing -- to avoid collegial retribution or to avoid hurting feelings -- but on scholarly topics I do not otherwise understand why one would prefer to edit anonymously!) harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad 11:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I haven't only edited on academic topics. I basically chose anonymity when I registered for three reasons: (1) abundance of caution, (2) I perceived that an academic reputation is not actually all that helpful on Wikipedia, and can even work against you in a dispute in some cases, (3) most importantly, it is hard to write neutrally about ideas that are associated with your name in print -- the urge to advocate for them becomes almost overwhelming. My first editing was about the hippocampus, my own primary research topic, and I saw that it would be hard to neutrally portray mainstream ideas that I think are actually wrong if I were writing under my own name. In any case, my name is not really a secret: I am Bill Skaggs, a behavioral neuroscientist who has published mainly on hippocampal electrophysiology. Other than the consciousness article, which is a longstanding interest but outside my academic domain, most of my serious editing has been on basic neuroscience articles. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

open access[edit]

responded to your note on my talk page Mattsenate (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bjorkspring.png[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bjorkspring.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this has been resolved. I made the figure. I hold the copyright. I released it into the public domain. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad

OK; have you sent an email to OTRS, as outlined at the deletion request at Commons? That will leave us without doubt that you own both sites. I'm truly sorry about the hassle; I and all of us value your contributions and don't want to frustrate you off the project with superfluous deletion requests. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad

Unperson[edit]

I find this strange: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.150.50 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth is an anonymous "unperson" honoring me with the information that they find an article in the Hungarian press about a cancelled debate between philosophers "strange"? Are Wikipedia talk pages for people to air (anonymously) their every momentary impression? I have no interest in anonymous opinions about Hungarian politics. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad
I agree. Nevertheless, I remember hearing in Klubradio the named liberal philosophers stating that Janos Boros is not a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.79.8 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I am a person; I presume the person named above ["JB"] may likewise be a person. On the other hand, what is "unsigned" and why does he she or it keep regaling me with his, her or its opinions, in which I have not the slightest interest? harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad
Dear person: it is certainly fine that you do not have the slightest interest in the so called Hungarian philosophers' affair. BTW Boros indeed is a person, but I know that you are not ineterested in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.79.8 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say I was not interested in the Hungarian philosophers' affair! (I just said I'm not interested in anonymous opinions.) On the contrary, I find it very interesting that the government has dropped all four of the cases against the philosophers this week, for lack of any wrong-doing, but without the slightest acknowledgement or apology for the damage that all their vicious FUD did. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I usually remember to do so. Fogot this time: Have gone back and corrected it. Thanks Stevan Harnad 22:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Indented lineI did sign with Stevan Harnad 20:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC) but apparently that was not enough. Here, I'll try it again: Stevan Harnad 20:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Orbán[edit]

Mr. Harnad, we have also article about the Second Cabinet of Viktor Orbán. Please put text to this article. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that the text should migrate there: it should really remain in the Viktor Orban entry. But I have now moved the passage you deleted where you asked, and left a pointer to it in the VO entry. Please do not remove the pointer. --Stevan Harnad 19:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC) User:Harnad
Dear Mr. Harnad. So, we have different opinions about the amendements, but for now it can not be clear for an external reader what amendments are involved. The textual has definitely must contain this information. naturally very important to use NPOV (neutral point-of-view), a main pillar of the Wikipedia. --Norden1990 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Political Soapboxing[edit]

Dear Harnad, while I appreciate your contributions, it seems to me that you are using Wikipedia for political soapboxing. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and neither a newspaper, nor a place for political battles. Recently, you made a lot of contributions on an amendment of the Constitution of Hungary. You added lengthy criticisms about this, and even copied the same text to several articles [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (same text 5 times) or [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] (same text 5 times) or [13][14][15][16][17] (same text 5 times). Reporting about current political issues / debates / arguments / events / documents is important for a society, however, that's not the aim of Wikipedia, since it is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper / radio station / tv channel / etc. Even if you think that these debates will not become obsolete pretty soon, so they have a place on an encyclopedia (BTW: I doubt that), still there is no point of copying the *same* text to several articles. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Dear Mr. or Mme. Koertefa: a rather important historic event is taking place, about which there is a great deal of international concern and criticism, from both scholars and statesmen. I am adding the pertinent current historical information in the pertinent Wikipedia entries. Not a word of it is my own; the individuals I am quoting and citing are world figures, and they are making very similar criticisms, but their identities are pertinent too. If you wish to post other points of view, please do go ahead. But I would greatly appreciate it if you stopped unilaterally deleting my postings under the pretext that they are soap-boxing. Perhaps you would like to return to your earlier point about the fact that I am a self-promoter, which, for some mysterious reason, you raised in the midst of deleting my postings? Talk:Stevan_Harnad#Is_this_a_self-promoting_article.3F --Stevan Harnad 21:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC) User:Harnad
Please, do not mix these issues. The fact that you occasionally edit the WP article about yourself has nothing to do with my comments above (apart from the fact that I realized it while I was trying to access your user page). If you edit WP, you should be aware that other users can edit or delete your contributions. That's the way WP works. Please, also note that you have added "unilaterally" your versions, as well, so others might delete it "unilaterally". Even if it was true that currently there were historical events in Hungary, would really be Wikipedia the right medium to report about them? Have you tried, for example, Wikinews? [18] Nevertheless, I agree with you that there should be comments about international criticisms of the Constitution of Hungary on the appropriate WP article, however, WP don't have to report about every single opinion, and especially copy-pasting the same text five times seems questionable. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello Mr. Harnad,

as other editors have explained to you before me: Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia. Not a news platform, not a political advocacy platform, not something else. Just an encyclopedia. "Recentism" means that events that recently happened are described very (too) detailedly, while events that happened a longer time ago are described shorter, because we already have a historical distance. If you write several pages (!) about every detail of the current Hungarian constitutional amendment, every single reaction, every single person arguing in favor or against the amendment, this is recentism. In an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, unlike in a news article, or a political discussion forum, this information has to be condensed to the most important facts and statements. Please try to imagine: which parts of information will still be important and interesting for a general public who wants to inform itself, e.g. about Fidesz, in 10, 20, or 50 years? Not every piece of information. Some will just be side issues or peripheral matters. They have to be condensed, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but aims to be an encyclopedia. Of course it is difficult to assess which parts of a development that is currently taking place will be considered historic in the future. But we have to try to. And the texts you have added are definitely too detailed for an encyclopedic article. For example, the article on Fidesz has to inform about the whole history of this party from its foundation in 1988 until today. And all parts of its history should be depicted in the same degree of detailedness. The events of the last weeks or months should not be covered much more detailedly than the events around the foundation of the party in 1988.

Thank you for understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and thank you for your cooperation.

Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Dear User:RJFF, Not sure whether you saw this on your talk page before you wrote the above:
As far as I can tell, you have no biasses one way or the other, based on your long editing history. So I just wanted to point out that there some extremely serious historic events transpiring (and in fact accelerating) in recent days and weeks in Hungary, chiefly in connection with the new constitution and its amendments, about which the EU and the international community are becoming increasingly concerned. I think it would be a great historic mistake to treat WP updates on these current goings-on as "recentism." This is an important unfolding current event, with very broad consequences. There are many other articles in WP in which it is an unfolding current event that is being updated. This is how the constitutional controversy (possibly heading toward crisis) should be viewed. Although I am pretty sure that that is not what is motivating your own suggestion that this may be "recentism," please do bear in mind that there are not-unbiassed partisans who would very much prefer that the mounting international criticism of the Hungarian constitution was not covered in WP but rather that it would simply subside and go away, and they have repeatedly invoked "recentism" and "soapboxing" as the justification for deleting my recent updates...
It's a safe bet that what is happening now with the Hungarian constitution will be be historic, with consequences for many generations to come. On the extremely unlikely possibility that it turns out to have been a tempest in a teapot, let it be deleted if and when that proves to be the case. As I said, there are plenty of WP pages that cover and are updated to keep pace with ongoing events. Surely this deserves to be one of them. And surely the possibility of such coverage is one of the unique new features of an online crowd-sourced encyclopedia, impossible in a Gutenberg-era static archival encyclopedia. This new capability does not diminish WP's value but enhances it.
----Stevan Harnad 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC) User:Harnad (talk)

Warning[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Harnad: It is not clear who sent the above warning: The notification seems to come from User:Biruitorul but the warning is unsigned. Also not clear why I am being warned, since I have added text and Biruitorul (and others) have deleted it rather than first discussing it with me in the talk page, as per WP policy. I have several times either modified or reverted what Biruitorul and others have deleted, so it is not at all evident why I am being warned about edit warring... (In any case, before receiving this warning, I had already initiated dispute resolution request. Not sure what to do next... --Stevan Harnad 19:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Biruitorul: I wrote a balanced summary of the recent amendment to the Hungarian constitution: one paragraph of description, one of criticism.

Harnad: The summary is unfortunately far from balanced. It states the Hungarian government's point of view and allows that there were some points of controversy. The substance and evidence behind the points of controversy is left out. Those missing substantive points are exactly the ones Professor Scheppele made -- most recently at the Washington Helsinki Commission Hearing in Washington last week[1]. And those are the points Biruitorul keeps deleting, even though, word for word, they are no longer than his pro-governnment summary. I first posted the points as a direct quote. Then the objection was against long direct quotes instead of summaries, so I replaced them by a light paraphrase. Then that was deleted too.

  • Biruitorul: Given the size of the rest of the article, I think this is an appropriate dimension. Also, this is not that significant of an event - yes, it's important, but it isn't, as Harnad claims, an "important, ongoing historic event... gaining more and more attention and weight worldwide". With all due respect, the last time anyone really cared about internal developments in Hungary was the Ajka alumina plant accident.

Harnad: I think the daily growing international press attention, EU and US governmental attention and academic attention to the new Hungarian constitution is ample evidence that there is indeed worldwide concern about internal developments in Hungary.

  • Biruitorul: I vociferously object to the inclusion of the blog post in question. For one, no matter how many times Harnad repeats the phrase "International constitutional scholar and Hungary specialist, Professor Kim Lane Scheppele", that does not automatically mean we should be quoting her. And it's slightly misleading to say the comments appeared on "Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman's New York Times Blog"; there is Paul-Krugman-as-economist, and there is Paul Krugman-as-politically-opinionated-individual, and it's the latter who mainly runs the blog. The comments are partisan in tone, they are on a blog (i.e., not peer reviewed), they are editorial content - in short, they are not relevant to the topic.

Harnad: Professor Scheppele's analysis has also been presented to Senator Cardin's Committee (last week) and is now published in the record of the US Helsinki Commision[2] (Critiques by others have also been published in the official working documents of the European Parliament[3][4][5][6] and by the Venice Commission on Hungary[7].)

Harnad: I don't know what WP policy is about information that is pertinent to multiple articles. Cross-referring might be a solution, but I think the passages are short enough so it is more useful and informative to include them at the appropriate point of each of these articles. (And, yes, I would say that the Hungarian constitutional controversy is pertinent to the history of Hungary too. It would be good to hear other views on that, though. Please let's keep the question of whether the critiques of the new Hungarian Constitution should appear in the article about the new Hungarian Constitution separate from the question of what other articles they should also appear in.)

  • Biruitorul: Does Kim Lane Scheppele (note the red link) really have to be mentioned in all those articles? I happen to care about the article on the Constitution the most because I wrote it (and no, I'm not claiming I own it, but it's natural I should care), but this should be addressed. Harnad's strong feelings on the topic shouldn't be making a soapbox out of a whole spectrum of articles. - Biruitorul Talk 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Harnad: Biruitorul may have written most of the Constitution of Hungary article, but a new Hungarian Constitution has been written recently, and an internationally controversial one. And, yes, Professor Scheppele [8] [9] [10] [11] is probably today's foremost expert on international constitutional law and the new Hungarian Constitution. Why on earth should the summary of the main points of her critique -- now being consulted and discussed worldwide -- be deleted from the WP article about the Constitution of Hungary? --Stevan Harnad 01:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Kindly keep this nationalist cant off my talk page and out of WP. I do not know Biruitorul, I do not know (or care) about his/her nationality and I don't happen to agree with him/her about deleting Professor Scheppele's timely and knowledgeable critique of the new Constitution of Hungary and its unending amendments, but he/she has been courteous and the exchange(s) have been only about substance, as they should be, not about personal insinuations. Please let's keep it that way. Anonymous people publicly calling anonymous people stupid has even less interest than identified people publicly calling anonymous (or identified) people stupid. --Stevan Harnad 14:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

References

WikiProject Cognitive science[edit]

Dear Stevan, we have recently set up up a WikiProject Cognitive science. If you're interested, please read about the project's motivation and objective at the project page. It would be very nice to see you around. Kindly, (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll look in now and then, but I'm too overloaded to be able to commit to more. --Stevan Harnad 23:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that would be great! Kind regards, (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Constitution of Hungary DRN filing[edit]

A proposal to close the filing as stale has been floated at WP:DRN and in less than 48 hours will be acted upon unless there is significant objection. Please consider if the dispute is still active and respond if appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Please don't close yet. I still plan to propose a summary posting. --Stevan Harnad 23:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Troll (internet)[edit]

Sure, it's a fine and valuable source, but footnotes go at the end of statements which are being supported by the source. You added it to the end of the lede sentence fragment ("In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people"), but the source in no way confirms that a "troll" is a person who sows discord, because the source doesn't use the word "troll". You're welcome to use the same reference to document the early internet's view of troll-type behaviour, it's just meaningless to attach it to a sentence that it doesn't directly support. --McGeddon (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Ok, thanks, posting at the end. Chrs, SH --Stevan Harnad 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dis-Vandalization help Please[edit]

This material was maliciously vandalized, removed - on the 24th of August, please check the log Dynomitedetails (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC) |}

  • Why are you spamming with this "dis-vandalization" post?--Stevan Harnad 00:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Alanna Devine[edit]

Hello, Harnad, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Alanna Devine, appears to be directly copied from http://suprememastertv.com/services_subt.php?bo_table=aw&wr_id=454&subt_cont=aw&show=aw. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Alanna Devine if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  • The content is generic: a series of facts. The words have been paraphrased. It is not a verbatim quote. No copyright issues. --Stevan Harnad 20:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Harnad0anti-fur.jpg[edit]

Hi, I saw your request for deletion has been archived Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-12 but there was no indication that you had seen the last message and emailed COM:OTRS. I'm not 100% sure on the process myself, so not sure if you can just email on your reply from IDA, or they have to email direct. Just thought I'd point this out in case you had not seen the update after you posted the email directly on the request. Cheer — KylieTastic (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

  • == Harnad0anti-fur.jpg ==
    • Dear KylieTastic, thanks for letting me know. I have now written this to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
      • Dear Permissions,
      • This concerns:
      • Harnad0anti-fur.jpg[edit]
      • Hi, I saw your request for deletion has been archived Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-12 but there was no indication that you had seen the last message and emailed COM:OTRS. I'm not 100% sure on the process myself, so not sure if you can just email on your reply from IDA, or they have to email direct. Just thought I'd point this out in case you had not seen the update after you posted the email directly on the request. Cheer — KylieTastic (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I had mistakenly posted the reply on the image's talk page instead of sending it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and the image was removed. I am now sending it to *** permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with apologies, and requesting that the image be un-deleted.
      • Many thanks,
      • Stevan Harnad
        • On 2013-12-13, at 3:38 PM, Anita Carswell <anita@idausa.org> wrote:
        • Hi Steven,
        • Wow! I had no idea they were so strict! Yes, the poster is ours and we give you permission to use the picture with it. I am hoping this is enough and I don't need to create an account/log in myself, but if somehow someone here needs to do that, please let me know exactly what I need to do.
        • Thanks!
        • Anita
        • Original Message
        • Subject: Permission to post your anti-fur sign to wikicommons
        • From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad@uqam.ca>
        • Date: Fri, December 13, 2013 8:04 am
        • To: info@idausa.org
    • I hope this will re-instate the image.

--Stevan Harnad 13:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Martine Lachance[edit]

Hello, Harnad,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Martine Lachance should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martine Lachance .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Wieno (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about International Research Group on Animal Law[edit]

Hello, Harnad,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether International Research Group on Animal Law should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Research Group on Animal Law .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Wieno (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry[edit]

Hi Harnad, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Correctly signing talk-page posts -- for future reference.[edit]

Hi Stevan, in the future, could you please remember to correctly sign your posts by typing four (not three or five) tildes, like so: ~~~~

Doing so will automatically sign your clickable username, and your clickable talk page, and the correct time, when you save the page. DO NOT type your name or surname, the time, or anything else, when signing a post. Thank you. You may practice signing, using the four tildes, in your sandbox, if you like -- a link to it is at the top left of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in. Softlavender (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Harnad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Animal Sentience (journal)[edit]

Hello, Harnad. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Animal Sentience (journal), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Steve Quinn (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

  • References provided as per deletion request --User:Harnad 13:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Animal Sentience (journal) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Dianaa, the verbatim self-description from the journal has been replaced by my paraphrase. --User:Harnad 17:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Animal Sentience (journal) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Animal Sentience (journal) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Sentience (journal) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not appreciated[edit]

User:Harnad please do not vandalize the AfD page to insert your comments as you did here [19], which I reverted here [20] . Please do not do this again. Please place your comments in the proper order in the AfD. I know you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know how to do this. I have no problem going to ANI regarding this kind of disruptive editing behavior. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Steve Quinn I have never been involved in this kind of a discussion before and I was not aware that it was not permitted to quote/comment as I did. I apologize. Please assume good faith unless there is evidence otherwise. --User:Harnad (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Steve Quinn P.S. I've now looked at the discussion and only now see how much extra work my error created for you. I doubly apologize, and thank you for nevertheless taking the trouble to restore my responses in the correct format (I had been afraid that they might all have been erased!) Please be assured that despite having edited WP for many years, I lack experience in delete discussions. I will do my best to follow the example I observe in other participants in this discussion. --User:Harnad (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your response. However, another problem I see is: please stop editing your biography and the Animal Sentience page because, on these pages, it seems your edits do not always conform to Wikipedia's editing guidelines and policies. The rationales you provide to various editors, regarding this type of editing, very much rely on your personal opinions, such as these: [21], [22]. These types of rationales are usually not considered sound effective arguments that support editing on Wikipedia.
Arguments not based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines are a cause for concern or consternation amongst productive editors. This might cause those editors to suspect motives. So, I am trying to say, please familiarize yourself with policies and guidelines directly related to editing on Wikipedia. In this way, you and other editors will be referencing the same ideas and principles during discussions. This will help alleviate concerns. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I am going to make this even simpler. For starters please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. I think in this instance, these are most applicable. I could be wrong. However, nothing ventured, nothing gained...---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Steve Quinn: Thanks, these two articles clarified a misunderstanding I had long had: I had thought the objections about RS were against citing primary journal articles instead of secondary sources like book chapters or journalists' magazine articles. I think I now see that it refers to passages in editing WP, when an external citation is needed (and that a primary journal reference is ok). I am pretty sure I can provide this for any assertion that is called into question in any of my entries, in particular, my biographical entry and the entries for the two journals of which I was editor Behavioral and Brain Sciences and am currently editor Animal Sentience (journal). Any WP editor can flag any portion for which they seek RS and I will try to provide a reliable ref. --User:Harnad (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright and Categorical perception[edit]

It appears that you are the author of the paper that formed the basis for much of the Categorical perception article. I just declined a WP:G12 speedy deletion request on that page, but can you submit a ticket to OTRS to verify that you indeed released the text under a sufficiently free license for re-use on Wikipedia? The directions for that are at WP:DONATETEXT. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Patar knight, thanks for not doing a speedy delete. I have filled out the form and sent it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
I hereby affirm that I, Stevan Harnad, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_perception.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Stevan Harnad
2017-12-01

User:Harnad (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You would have to link to the actual paper that the text is derived from [23] in the release to OTRS, so I would send a clarifying email, or resend the form with the correct URL. Thanks. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Patar knight Permissions-Wikipedia Commons (Alfred Neumann) replied to the form I sent as follows: "please specify where and by whom you have been asked to confirm permission," so I sent him your name and message, together with a link to the original text. Thanks for your help. Is there anything else I need to do? --User:Harnad (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Pinging to remind @Patar knight:. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Harnad. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)