User talk:Non-vandal

Nietzsche

HI I'm putting this opening comment on your page to make sure you get it - if you want ot discuss it further though, you should come over to the Nietzsche talk page. You are right that Nietzsche did not fall into any tradition or school. However, he has had many later disciples who I think understand him to a fair degree. As such, I think it is fair to put him in categories which, as you say, are anachronistic. I cannot see what you have against putting anachronistic tags on things.

Oh, and while I'm about it . . .

Welcome!

Hello, Non-vandal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! mge kelly 06:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no qualms with anachronism, but when it is more or less distortive I get antsy. He is also considered a part of the analytic tradition (read Adorno's interesting account) and so I have followed (in a similar way as you have) up with the article to indicate this. Cheers, Non-vandal 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Non-Vandal, I'm a little surprised by our latest edit to FN in light of what you say above. The only way we can work on Wikipedia, given that everyone has equal power to edit, is to reach consensus. Please come and give your new case against placing FN in any school or tradition on the FN discussion page so that all interested parties can discuss it. mge kelly 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Nietzsche

Sorry about reverting you, I mistook you for a vandal because the last version of the page was not by the person you were reverting. My apologies. Prodego ^talk 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks to me more like a content dispute. Try discussing it with Petrejo on the talk page or try the Mediation Cabal. Also see the three revert rule, and make sure you don't break it. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 01:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Friedrich Nietzsche. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your edit summary about Petrejo, I looked into this and we can only get him blocked every time he violates WP:3RR. Petrejo's nonsense sadly is not defined as vandalism under the policy. The only way to deal with this issue within Wikipedia policy (and all our reverts actually are against policy) is to go through dispute resolution. I don't have the time to do this and it would be great if someone else could find the time. mge kelly 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest I laughed. Yanksox 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche-related stress

Wikistress is a killer. Wishing you all the best with your Nietzsche interventions and offering you an opportunity to relax at Esperanza.

File:Esperanza.Coffee.gif

Perfectly percolated coffee, Esperanza's own blend.

User: Petrejo

I've contacted him. Just so it has been said, I'm not an administrator or a mediator, so there's nothing I can do other than start proceedings if this gets out of hand. Also, I know the situation is frustrating for you, but you would also do well to tone down the rhetoric as well. -Smahoney 21:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention that - one of the things I mentioned to him on his talk page was that he shouldn't view this as a chance to prove his case. I'm not sure that it will help, but we'll see. I really understand your frustrations - a couple months ago there was a similar situation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which featured a user making blanket accusations against everyone who disagreed with him and rampant bad faith assumptions. I had to take a wikibreak during that, and made the occasional personal attack as well. Unfortunately, that user had to be banned, which is one thing I'm really hoping doesn't have to happen here, since no one else seems particularly inclined to research anti-Nietzsche positions, which could benefit the article if done right. Has anyone approached him about mentorship? -Smahoney 22:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a stab at commenting on and reorganizing his last attempt. The results are on Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche. -Smahoney 20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 13:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page of above list for reply, which quotes from WP:LIST#Always_include_list_membership_criteria and WP:LIST#Set_clear.2C_neutral.2C_and_unambiguous_criteria. Best, Universitytruth 14:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back (again). Have you had a chance to consult WP:LIST? Thoughts on using this guidance to manage Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers will be appreciated. Universitytruth 18:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits of 17 July 2006 on List_of_German-language_philosophers: excellent work! Universitytruth 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Help with Nietzsche article

I created the Nietzsche contra Wagner article and am interested in your perspective. Thanks. -Bordello 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

goethe

Thanks for the note regarding Goethe Kant and Hegel. My memory must be faulty. Although it was a strong influence on me, I read the book over a decade ago. — goethean ॐ 16:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where to put it.

To answer your question, I think that we should follow the example of the kierkegaard article and break out N's thought from the biographical article. the biographical article would consist of:

Biography

1.1 Youth (1844–1869)

1.2 Professor at Basel (1869–1879)

1.3 Free philosopher (1879–1888)

1.4 Mental breakdown and death (1889–1900)

2 Nietzsche's thought

3 Nietzsche's influence and reception

3.1 History of political reception

4 Selected works

5 Notes

6 External links

6.1 Full texts

6.2 Other sources

The Nietzsche's thought article could merge all of the assorted articles that we have now into one large article:

1 Key concepts

1.1 Nihilism and God is dead

1.2 Master morality and slave morality

1.3 Christianity as an institution and Jesus

1.4 Amor fati and the eternal recurrence

1.5 Übermensch and Last Man

2 Place in contemporary ethical theory

3 Social and political views

This course of action would unfairly highlight Petrejo's "History of political reception" section. For this reason, that section must be rigorously vetted before it is added to the article. — goethean ॐ 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk

I've made a proposal here, and am seeking feedback. Best,--Anthony Krupp 14:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a newcomer: 172.1XX.XXX.XXX

Yeah, I caught one by that editor, too. -Smahoney 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N

For your trouble patrolling all the Nietzsche articles, I give you this: *, a pink asterik of dilligence. -Bordello 04:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No science to it but to do it. Yeah, just variation. -Bordello 07:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What about his philology, like Igni pointed out? That deserves elaboration." Yeah, I just kind of screwed up and struck out everything. Good call. If you'd like, I'll change the color of your pink asterik (if you don't like it; I just haven't given out a pink one before, which is why I did). But of course, you're free to do it yourself. Here's a minor one for catching my goof: *. Spend it wisely. -Bordello 22:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation on Nietzsche-Petrejo

Hello, I offered my opinion on this issue on the case page and would like your input on my suggestion. --Marinus 12:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view requested

Greetings (it's been a while!); 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 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]