User talk:KD Tries Again

I'm also a newcomer here, I'm trying to follow the debate. I grasp the reasoning you presented. I may have more questions for you. Richiar 07:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I arrived at this discussion out of the ruins of the Anglophone/Analytic and Continental Philosophy discussion, which rightly ended in the deletion of the article. KD Tries Again 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD Jan 16 07[reply]

I believed you were Analytic because you seemed to think that the Heidegger/Cassirer debate had nothing to do with the schism, since it is more likely that Analytics cut things in a black and white manner. The flavour of the Heidegger debate was interesting anyhow and to see one leader of Continental, Levinas and another of Analytic, Carnap in the same audience, with a split view from each was also interesting. (If I remember this was the thing you wanted to change.)

But since you say you were trained in Analytic but now teach Continental (or whichever way round), you would be the ideal person to start a new article. There are several links there from other places and right now it is blank, see "schism..." in the intro of Analytic or other pages.

Nonetheless though you are not Analytic, much of the delete squad were, they even pushed people to vote and to revert votes, they're a real mob. Many people like to ignore this divide, you played right into their hands! I didnt even solicit one vote! So in this sense I think I actually won the debate.

--Lucas 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made some very intelligent comments on the talk page. Could you support the reversion plan as per this message on the talk page. The idea is to defend a single version against attack. Eventually these people do go away, believe me, we can always argue about the reverted version later. As you say, no point in making minor alterations to something that is constantly shifting. Dbuckner 08:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Obviously, I particularly like what you say here. However, this is like trying a have a reasonable debate when there is full scale civil war going on, gunfire, explosions &c. I am just trying to get all the reasonable-sounding people in one trench. Best. Dbuckner 08:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS you make a second point which I just noticed. Exactly: there is a distinction between finding out what things in particular exist, which Aristotle says is the subject of the ordinary sciences, and finding out what existing is qua existing, or what it is for a thing to exist inasmuch as it exists. I tried explaining that to our friend (the spectacularly mad one) but to very little effect. Do please stay and help, your contributions are very welcome. Dbuckner 09:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was there 79 - 84. I knew Edo well. How is he? Sadly a lot of that department are gone to eternity. CJFW died, also Hirschmann. Michael Welbourne was my tutor. My email is d3uckner AT btinternet.com. Your contributions on 'continental' philosophy would be welcome - the reason I never got very far with that article was my lack of knowledge of the thing. However, Edo was a bit out of date - Husserl and all that stuff. I still have his book on phenomenology. You are doing great work on the page, keep it up, I am taking a break for a day or two. Dbuckner 19:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of inaccuracy is a general issue to be confronted on the philosophy talk page. The additions being made there are open to review. A number of people have edited the section you refer to and you are also welcome to edit it or add extra referenced material to it. --Lucas 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no disputing the inaccauracy of the material from which I draw. The material I draw from is scholarship, books, journals.

What was disputed was the article, primarily the name (eg, ask Lucidish), secondly some of the middle material. The historical part was not questioned for inaccuracy though someone disputed if something was or was not part of schism history or just philosophy history.

I attempted to build a completely new description of this divide and the start of the bit you removed was completely new but you just removed it all. Without consideration, I have not seen you make many contributions to the philosophy page, but I will not remove it all, rewrite that takes thought and effort, please try and be constructive. --Lucas 21:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I could not respond to phil talk because were lots of edit conflicts. The accuracy of the article was questinoed of course nobody questions the accuracy of for example Rorty's paper, this is just a matter of primary source. There is major changes to it. And this is the stuff quoted in the philosophy page ,eg the quote on Babich. The title was the problem, I was not willing to change the title and the guy/girl 29812 then put it up for deletion. He has been here for years and asked all his friends to come and ask to delete it. This is not the way to philosophy in my opinion. Again I'm not sure youi know what constructive means. There is a huge history to this schism, instead of removing or doubting if something was a part of it, go out and find some more incidents. --Lucas 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say I did not revert the work you did on the philosophy page. We have been having a discussion, I concede some points and you others. You removed the Cassirer debate, I left it out but just mentioned the Levinas Carnap comments as I think they show something. I also left Heidegger's quote though it pertains to the debate I think it shows perhaps one important link between both sides of the division. If you want to develop ideas that show bridges between the two please go ahead, we could put in a subection "Bridges across the divide" or something like that.

I returned also the thing above Chomsky I believe it is not exactly in line but it does hint at some divergent ideas of Foucault from the usual philosophic humanism of Analytic philosophy. It is also nice to have a video of a debate between an English speaking intellectual and a continetal philosopher.

I find you just have an irrational urge to not contribute to this section, nowhere do you clearly explain this. Is there something I'm missing? Lucas 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy is the Page.

Enjoyed very much the fact of your exact references, and reading your commentary - its like your doing the work for at least us both.

PS: Maybe drinking the hemlock imposed by mediocrity will not be required?

Best Wishes from

Yours truly, Socrates & --Ludvikus 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Philosophy

Now I understand your position. Let me direct your attention to the fact that we already have in the first sentence what appears like a definition - the problem is that some wish to put more in. I think the most critical focus has been on the words

]

Sorry to hear ...

About Andrew Harrison. Very sorry, he was a good guy. He had a dog called 'Taxi' (geddit). Another reason for being sorry is that he had all 3 copies of my PhD Theses which then went missing. I suppose lost for ever. Still it wasn't very good, with hindsight.

Andrew Morton (don't know if he overlapped with you) left under mysterious circumstances.

I'm afraid I can't place you at all. Are your initials (KD) a good guide? Anyway, do get in touch. Dbuckner 08:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I see you have had a visit from Ludvikus - you will get used to this. Dbuckner PPS I agree with your point about Lucas. He seems hell bent on getting that horrible schism thing back into the main article. I support you 101% on this. Dbuckner 08:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give my reasons for not liking that section. Mainly because the style is atrocious. 9/10 of all my problems with philosophy in WP is plain bad writing. But difficult to argue with someone who writes badly, that it is so. Like explaining to tone deaf people how to sing in tune. The other problem is the length of the existing article. I would prefer to see it as a brief introduction, about the length of the snake. Then a few sections about how different periods and schools have viewed the method, subject matter and goals of philosophy. Then a brief section on the history of philosophy with links to the main article History of philosophy which is atrocious. There is no point in making the article a mini-essay when there are plenty of sub-articles which could do the heavy lifting. Thus the Analytic Continental divide deserves a serious article in its own right (there probably is one but haven't dared look). The section in this article need be no more than a few paragraphs summarising the main points of the heavy article. I think the problem here is that a certain individual was upset his contribution was taken very seriously, and is now wreaking revenge here. Anyway, those were my thoughts. I really appreciate having someone who knows about this tradition, as it is somewhat of a closed book to me. (That said, I have read most of Being and Nothingness, and much of Being and Time. But Derrida I got no further than a few paragraphs. I had no idea whatsoever what he was going on about.) Best Dbuckner 09:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is so badly written, if it is anything to go by, I would not like to see it in an article. It is one large block dense and hard to read. It begins sentences with "But" it splits sentences., it uses peculiar hard to understand expression, "heavy lifting". Who made you master of style anyhow? I knew the division was a " closed book" and little known to Dbucker, yet he still insisted on removing it even though with his superlative knowledge of style he could have tidied it up!

Anyhow, K D, I do not remove the stuff you do. The problem was that you removed my stuff, I then returned it. Ok so I removed your remove, but that is exactly what I mean by not contributing. To contribute you must add or edit something, and I promise I will not remove it, though I might edit it. --Lucas 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I was talking of contributing in a positive way and not just removing stuff. And no, you have no imposed duty, I was just appealing to a more constructive attitude, since removals and reverts tend to block the flow of things.

You suggest you could add Popper V Adorno and Wittgenstein. Well why would you mentioned it if you did not think them relevant? Maybe you do not feel confident adding stuff, or you cannot find the references, that is ok, I can help you with that.

I'm not sure of your stance on the schism but I think trying to ignore it is not a good idea. Also you refer to a citation you made on Ryle and Heidegger, I see none other than an out-of-context quote from the review. I on the other hand do cite when I say it was a largely "negative and dismissive review" (nor was this Babich's comment). Are you expecting me to believe that Analytic in comparison to Continental philosophy, did anything with Heidegger other than in the main ignore it. What do you think is going on in philosophy in the 20th century? Rorty, who you mention, refers to the schism in quite clear terms, he considers that only about 10% of philosophers are on neither side of this divide, and that it is a big issue for getting a job in philosophy since in the U.S. only a few "Continentals" are hired. --Lucas 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthism

suggests you must be a very well sheltered younster living on Park Avenue.

Wittgenstein dominate post-WWI America, with Quine in tow. --Ludvikus 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way - I'm only pointing out that such a dismissive view of yours can only mean that Marxists are right - that we can only expect you to express the views of Capitalism. You do not demonstrate objectivity by unilaterally offering to delete. If you delete me, I'll delete you.

Do you follow my argument above?

Please do not take it personally - it's not intended to be so.

However, you have expressed yourself as an authority on Truth above.

Regards, --Ludvikus 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I do not like the word "Schism", but otherwise Lucas is correct about the Gulf between the Continent of Europe and Anglo-America. So I side with him.

The brake, I think is tracable to the Rationalists/Empiricist split. And we must trace its history, step by step; so it's better if you take an issue at a time. --Ludvikus 18:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I think we are both victims of vandalism. "interjection" is not my word. I think someone else pasted it onto your page. --Ludvikus 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, any editor who prevents other editors from working can be blocked. I did make an RfC against Ludvikus, but I need 2 supporters. I'm sure Mel and others would be happy. Lucas can also go on the list. There is no point in working in this constant vandalism. Would you support the complaint? Dbuckner 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

]

RfC

Let's do it tomorrow. Best Dbuckner 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Philosophy/Workshop. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus has raised the interesting thesis, namely 1. Continental philosophy is characterised by an attachment to Marxism. 2. It developed on the Continent because there is not the stigma attached to Marxism as there was in the USA.

I can see there may be truth in both of these, but it would require careful argument, plus citation and avoidance of OR. Is this view documented in the literature? I think there is room for a carefully written and researched article that says whether there is or isn't a split (I think Jason Stanley argues there isn't), what if anything characterises the split, and so on. Possibly a paragraph, but no more, in the Philosophy page.

My take on it is that it is a bit like the Eurovision song contest. But I'll defer to your expertise in this area. Dbuckner 11:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that note. It strikes me what you wrote there would be good enough for an article on the subject. I'm going to look now and see if there is a 'Continental' page. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

Current disruption on Philosophy Talk

Hi - your comments on the talk page have been insightful and useful. Unfortunately it is very hard to locate them due to the current disruption on the page (mostly caused by Ludvikus, in my view, though there is one other, who is less disruptive). A community ban on one of the editors (Ludvikus) has been proposed by Banno, which I strongly support. However, other administrators feel there is not much evidence of any disruption. If you do feel that there is a problem, and that current conditions make work on the article difficult or impossible, please leave a message on FT2's talk page. FT2 is currently co-ordinating work on the Philosophy article. Dbuckner 08:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get too havy about this, but this comment suggests a rather unWikipedian attitude towards the project. Wikipedia isn't here to provide slapstick entertainment. the Philosophy article is a mess, and has been a mess for some time; it should be a flagship article, and it's a condemned hulk. If something isn't done about Ludvikus, in particular, then there will be no chance of improving it; if sensible editors don't show solidarity in their opposition to this sort of circus, then nothing witll be done about him. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel's a good guy, don't take this in the wrong way. See my message on his talk page. Dbuckner 11:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my (too hastily written) message came over wrongly; I wasn't trying to get at you or to blow off steam, just alerting you to my worry that your light-hearted response (though understandable) might not help us to deal with the problem. (It's nice to know, though, that Ludvikus has had an "extremely voluable experience" here; that was my impression too.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate the problem is twofold but

1. Two is much harder to deal with than one.

2. One of those two is easier to deal with. As you will find out, Wikipedia has specific policies to deal with troublesome editors, but very few to deal with merely incompetent but persistent ones. One step at a time. Dbuckner 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fare thee well sweet heart. However, I'm sure he will be back. Dbuckner 16:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question please - what was this comment in respect of? Many thanks FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Double check - do you remember who added the original statement and information quoted in that edit? I would like to not assume. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I posed some questions about the analytic contintental thing? It might help me to clarify what it actually is, and it might form useful material for some of the articles.

1. The consensus (in reference-book world) seems to be that the distinction arose after WWI. In particular, with the rejection by Russell, Moore and others of the 'Oxford logistics' circle and of the English Hegelian school. Is that correct?

2. Or was there some sort of distinction before? Was the English Hegelian school a blip, and thus the post-WWI state simply a return to the normal state of affairs before Bradley and co? E.g. there's a strong anti-metaphysical, and also anti-German tendency in the writings of Mill, & one could see Russell as the natural heir of Mill (indeed, wasn't he Mill's godson?).

3. Was there any reaction among the 'continentals' similar to the one in the English analytic school? I.e. was the reaction against the English Hegelians a reaction against 'continental' style philosophy, or was it simply a reaction against the past? And if the latter, was there also a reaction against the past on the continental side (hope that makes sense).

4. Does the real distinction go back to Hegel? He is impenetrable to me in the same way I find much continental philosophy impenetrable. Also, there is no real equivalent of Hegel in Anglo philosophy, is there?

5. Are there any subject areas that distinguish one school from the other? Sartre and Heidegger seem to have an obsession with consciousness, but then so does Wittgenstein, and so does a lot of modern analytic.

6. Is there any continental equivalent of the analytic obsession with predicate calculus?

Best - E.D. Dbuckner 09:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your contribution! I edited slightly, and quite unfairly, to add humour value.

Thanks for the reply to my questions. As you can guess, I'm thinking on the lines of, if you had half a page on the subject, what would you say. More later. Dbuckner 19:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/1/desired.htm

Email for editors: http://www.iep.utm.edu/1/editors.htm

Editors' lists:

Language: http://uh.edu/~psaka/IEPlist.htm

Logic: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~klement/IEP/desired_logic_articles.txt

History of Analytic: http://www.malone.edu/2909

Continental: http://www.utas.edu.au/philosophy/staff_research/reynolds/IEParticles.html (note that existentialism and Bergson are already reserved, articles such as *Deleuze* could be suggested to JR)

19th century European: http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/iep/19th-des.htm —The preceding

]

These are requests from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This is a very good encyclopedia, and getting better. However, it is not a collaborative-approach system like Wikipedia. I'm one of those people who are incapable of producing any work without discussing it and iterating with other people. The only problem with that, as we have seen elsewhere, is that certain people can't iterate and discuss in productive ways. Worth a try, however. I'm discussing with IEP on a couple of articles. Dbuckner 09:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supposing that IEP editors are aware of the limitation of their current structure and want to change it, and unlike Stanford they have no budget for keeping the encyclopedia online (volunteer basis only), what improvements would you suggest? I think a collaborative effort would be opposed by some subject experts, but perhaps some would be open to feedback for improvement in a conversational wikitalk style. If some behind the scenes wiki technology were employed in which authors, editors, and invited philosophers could participate in article improvement or collaboration, would you participate? Do you think it would lead to unproductive personal conflicts between subject experts? Would it make authors or area editors who choose not to participate appear uncooperative? Zeusnoos 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-American philosophy needs to be updated. Support is unclear. If you wouldn't mind changing it to Keep or Delete that would help clarify your position. Thank you! -- Kesh 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Continental" didn't start at some point in time - it was what people started calling a bunch of schools which were not analytic. "

Interesting. But this sounds like before 20C all philosophy was pretty much similar, barring obvious differences in style, and language. Then analytic sprang up, and obliterated previous philosophical ideas in certain places. But in other places, the old manner of philosophy clung on. Rather like the Catholic church (contintental) vs protestant (analytic).

Not sure about that. I remember a bit from Heidegger - I'll try and locate it - where he says that it is not that there is a question of the existence external world, but that people insist on asking the question again and again, when in fact the very question presupposes the answer. (Not very will put - let me find the quote). Very similar to the analytic view that it makes no sense to ask whether everything can be doubted.

In summary, there is an alternative view that there was a reaction to 19C philosophy in Europe and in Anglo-land, but the reaction happened in different ways.

Another thought is that we have a word for what is done in 'anglo-land', but no proper word for 'continental' (which is an anglo-land term). What do continentals call what they do? Is the fact they don't, indicative of a fragmentation of views, schools, whatever?

I'll stop rambling now. This should really go on the Philosophy talk page, but a bit cautious about going there right now. Dbuckner 08:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbuckner: Continental philosophers are like Anglo-American philosophers — they normally just think of themselves as doing philosophy, and where relevant they use labels that distinguish them from those with whom they're in direct conflict, within their own traditions. The broader labels only come in to play occasioanlly, usually when someone doesn't reralise that there's a difference.

KD Tries Again: I can't really get through Husserl much myself, but some things that he says (admittedly derived from people like Descartes) have a clarity and straightforwardness that takes me by surprise. I like the distinction between ludicity and lucidity, though. I've tried many times (I mean made genuine attempts) to appreciate Continental philosophy, and every time I've found myself either shaking with laughter at peculiar purple pompous, even pachydermous, prose used to paper over the pitiful paucity of philosophical perception (sorry, I got carried away), or at a loss to see how anyone could make such a name while saying so little of interest. The thing is that I often have similar reactions to Anglo-American philosophical works. I suppose that the difference is that I can appreciate and approve of the standards of Anglo-American philosophy, it's just that many philosophers don't meet them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Derrida wasn't much respected even by Continental philosophers? The ones that I've met (mostly French, a couple of Greeks and Italians) didn't think much of him (to say the least). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated your suggestions into

Your Knowledge of Analytic Philosophy

Only now have I had a chance to read over some of your views on the above.

And I am happy to say this to you. There is no-one on Wikipedia that I've seen (except myself of course), who knows more about the above than you. But why have you wasted so much of your time and energy expounding that knowledge on other peoples' Talk pages? You should stick to your expertise above, and do it where it shall do some good - not merely where you have. Do you understand me? Will you return to

Anglo-American philosophy? The page is dying for your valuable knowledge? Why are you not being Bald? Wikipedia policy encourages boldness. Do not waste your time in engaging in Power politics. You are not in some University Philosophy Department where you have to kiss ass to get yourself in. --Ludvikus 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Clarification request

I'm not sure if this was the right thing to do, however, I tried to put a question on the workshop page about clarifying the Analytic/Continental issue; specifically, why should or should not "Continental" be included in the Philosophy article? I'm asking for the sake of clarification, hoping not to stir up the hornets nest. Richiar 09:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my message on the talk page of that article. Dbuckner 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go at the introduction. See what you think. I'm starting to wonder if Philosophy should be abandoned as a lost cause. If we concentrate on what should be the sub-articles, get nicely-worded introductions to those, then we can always make up an article consisting of the introductions to the sub-articles, problem solved. Philosophy should be no more than a set of links, plus a thread. The problem is people feel the desperate urge to write personal essays. Dbuckner 09:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page here. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all. Dbuckner 12:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comments on the B & T talk page. I noticed with concern that the Wiki work environment is wearing you down, too. I am actively working to turn this whole situation around, and need the help of people such as yourself. "Your pain is my pain". Please consider joining the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards (ESF). I am planning to use the philosophy conflicts as a case study to argue for a better managed Wiki work environment. Also, if you would turn on your emai, we might have further discussion on some technical issues. Richiar 16:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is useful to the extent it forces one to examine one's prejudices. I examined whatever I could find from my library from the 30's and 40's, to see if Heidegger is referenced. Hardly at all. Indeed, not at all. When the analytics disparage metaphysics, it is always 19th century grand metaphysics they have in mind. Therefore there is no 'schism' in the sense of conscious disagreement or difference, just a conscious break with the past.

Except for this passage from Monk's biography of W: "He could imagine, he said, what Heidegger means by anxiety and being ... St Augustine, Heidegger, Kierkegaard - these are not names one expects to hear mentioned in conversations of the Vienna circle - except as targets of abuse. Heidegger's work, for example, was used frequently by logical positivists to provide examples of the sort of thing they meant by metaphysical nonsense - the sort of thing they intended to condemn to the philosophical scrapheap." (p. 283)

The conversation of Wittgenstein is located to the (very) early 1930's, but Monk's claim about the logical positivists is not sourced. Given Heidegger was not published until 1929, I find that a little implausible. In the 1950's you can find plenty of examples of this sort, but I have located nothing earlier. I searched through all the Ayer I could find, and skimmed through a book by John Wisdom (utterly, completely dull). Perhaps in the writing of the German positivists.

On a different note, I found a passage from Isaac Watt's (Anglican hymn writer but also logician and philosopher, flourished mid 18C). There he mentions the 'Popish schoolmen' and talks disparagingly of 'Metaphysics'. Another dimension, of course, is the suspicion of Catholicism. Why this did not happen in Germany is another question. They wrote in Latin much later than in England (the last Latin writer is probably Hobbes, whereas even Kant wrote in Latin). And traditional logic was much more widely studied than in England.

Also picked up Russell's History (not looked at for a long time). Is surprisingly good. He says the character of German philosophy is to be explained as the product of a nation that feels it is qualified for greatness on the world stage, but also that it has been unfairly denied it.

Best Dbuckner 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KD says: "All I wanted to do was polish up a few philosophy articles - who knew???"

Richiar replies: "Yeah-who knew? thus my comment about Hotel California!!" Are you ready to order your wine? :) Richiar 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assert user Ludvikus' communication patterns demonstrates that user L is using pseudo-debate/pseudo-"Socratic dialogue"/logic reversal and false characterization, in a fillibuster tactic, and that he is doing so perceptively and subversively (suggesting disguised malice in my opinion).

I understand your comments: they are cogent and clear. I think there is a consensus generally supporting you and your effort on the Philosophy intro. Your points are clear to anyone without clouded reasoning, and I don't see a need for you to continue to belabor points already made clear.

I'm going to think this over and do a little more research, but I'm thinking of launching another rfc on Ludvikus: I am of the opinion he is incorrigable, willfully, and is starting to become disruptive of the flow of progress.Richiar 08:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the Armando Reveron article? (please post on my talk page) Kugelmass 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think it was Lucas. I'm pretty sure it was our friend Rick. He was sort of chief editor of that page for a bit, and invited in some very strange friends. I don't think there is any sense at all to be got from that section. It begins with a picture of Chomsky of all people, the first two sentences are babble. Indeed the whole lot is babble. It wouldn't harm to delete the lot. One thing to note, is that the trolls only bother with the opening section. They don't seem to mind if you fiddle around with the other stuff, unless you advertise it. I've never actually tried deleting a whole section, though. Why not try?

I puzzled a bit about why sitting around and humming might not be OK, as long as it came up with the goods (e.g. chant a mantra and suddenly you have the proof of the irrationality of 2 – that would be useful). Dbuckner 16:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I malign our friend. Part of it was put in in a series of edits of which this is typical, in Feb 2006. A lot of the current page dates from that period. Dbuckner 16:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KD. I am almost certainly moving to Citizendium. There's a good community there, a number of good philosophers, and (apart from some questions I have as to whether the Ludvikus problem could theoretically occur there) seems a good home in a good area. I would very much welcome your involvement. Your writing is first class, and you have a firm grasp of areas of philosophy I have never even approached. Email me at the usual address if you have any questions. It really has got too mad here. Dbuckner 08:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is to persuade some of the community here that a more 'robust' approach is required. Agree with you on the point about this place is the one that gets the attention, and that it's embarrassing our subject comes out top on a hit. Dbuckner 08:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the note you placed at 16:15 on 12 Feb, (starting "pride of authorship"), if you proceed to edit, I will preserve any comments you add. I am acting as a sort of "quality management monitor", and I consider you to be a high quality editor, so proceed at will. Richiar 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was done by the person who has an 8-digit name. I left a congratulatory message on his talk page. You see the Wiki concept does work if there is a nucleus of editors prepared to defend each other's work. Otherwise, it doesn't work so well. edward (buckner) 13:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your remarks on the existential section. It has deteriorated greatly; although the person who re wrote it seemed to try to "improve" it, the result was to diminish its quality. Your version was much clearer, and sounded authoritative. I will consider going in and trying to take it back closer to where you had it before, if no one else does. I would need to know where you stand on issues like how much of certain philosophers belong in there, and which ones are essential and which ones, while important, are not essential. Richiar 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see my recent remarks on the Philosophy talk page (Plato was an Idealist). It really is a lost cause. Best. edward (buckner) 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, I'm a little disheartened too, not because the Existentialist section was so precious, but because I can see it's only a matter of time before someone comes along and alters other sections I drafted just enough to make them wrong - good intentions, and all. It's a structural problem, and I expect it will affect an increasingly large number of pages now that Wikipedia has such a large audience.KD Tries Again 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Nice. I would never have thought of it as it seems so obvious but you're right, it's not obvious to everybody. Good shout. --

]

Handbra

Handbra has been proposed for deletion again and needs your two-fisted support. Handbra thanks you. H Bruthzoo

Hello, and thanks for taking a look at this. As you guessed, I provided much of the material for this article. Bits were indeed lifted from 'What is Existence', but I wrote this in the days when no one in WP bothered about sources or anything like that.

The main bit of work is in the sections you suggested. I know very little about the Big Germans, so I left those sections blank-ish. I do know a bit about the Meinong-Russell thing, but only from the analytic side (I did have a correspondence with Peter Simons where he sent me a paper arguing that Meinong had been misrepresented as coming out badly on the debate with Russell, and that this was a classic case of the victors re-writing history, but did not include any of this).

Could you help with the Big German issue? Also, I recognise the introduction needs some work. Difficult subject to introduce when the only real way of defining the concept is by synonyms, and where the subject area is so vast.

I have recently done some work on the medieval view, which could be included. Turns out their was a huge controversy in the 13C over a group called the intentionistae, who argued a view very similar to Meinong's, namely that a name is 'univocal' over existing things versus non-existing things. i.e. 'Caesar' means the same whether Caesar exists or not. I am working on a translation of Scotus, who is at least as obscure as Meining on the subject. Best edward (buckner) 11:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize. I wasn't singling you out in particular when I reinserted the lost items; it definitely grew directly out of correcting the massive vandalism campaign by some vindictive soul (and I use the term loosely) in making pornographic fun of her port-wine stain. Your deletion(s) unfortunately got caught up in my humble attempts to repair that small part of the article. I will in the future be more discretionary in reinserting old deletions, with discussions where appropriate, esp. involving those that are not vandalistic in nature (such as yours). Again, sorry; I'm still a bit new at this, and although it's not an excuse, it's an attempted explanation. Thanks for the heads up. TashTish 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your comment of Aug 3, I didn't know there were other groupings that could be added besides "the big 4". You and edward should have priority (in my opinion) with directing the course of the article. But maybe add comments to the talk page so it can be brought up for discussion. Richiar 01:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, I've taken the liberty of testing community consensus on deleting Wardrobe malfunction here. Input welcomed! Achromatic (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good to have you involved in the discussion. It's been a rather difficult time, although the 8-digit number guy has been a great support. Norwood again (the Kant expert, if you remember) plus some unusual newcomers. Peter Damian (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of which detracts from the more detailed work of tidying up. I had a look at Existence precedes essence this. I'm not an expert in the existentialist bit I know but this seems a bit dubious. Can you comment? Peter Damian (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I will tidy that up shortly. Peter Damian (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per discussion here, Annie has asked us not to show her birthdate in Wikipedia. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 15:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Stuart Holroyd. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me posting this here. I read your comments about covering Charlie Rangel's ongoing tax issues on his Wikipedia page (I had made a recent addition to this coverage). I'm curious what the standard is on Wikipedia for such updates? It seems to me that part of the beauty of Wikipedia is how current it can be kept. And having up to date information on someone who is in the news can be helpful for people searching for information on hot button topics. But I also understand your concern that a page doesn't become a place for news aggregation.

If you would prefer I move this discussion to the Charlie Rangel page where your comment is posted I will be happy to do so. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so I was curious to solicit your opinions without the formalities of a communal page. Cheers. (Wallamoose (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

KD Tries Again: you wrote on the philosophy talk page, 'If the latter, I am inclined to agree that some comments above may be problematic - but why not just request their removal rather than unilaterally remove other editors' comments from the talk page.' In response to that: no one has to ask for anyone's approval to remove BLP violations. Incivility and off topic comments are also subject to removal, as are personal attacks that don't amount to BLP violations (some of 271828182's comments qualify). That thread has been toned down, however, it still is unacceptable. You might want to start a discussion on ANI about this. Skoojal (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at this which is my response to Skoojal. This looks like another of the aggression with which some editors went after Peter. I'm sorely tempted to raise it on ANI and request the talk records to show Skoojal's involvement, --Snowded TALK 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had one brief encounter with Peter Damian, and it wasn't of any great consequence. His comments about, and behaviour toward, me were vastly more aggressive than anything I might have done to him. Skoojal (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the coutume is on wikipedia yet, but I'm going to try replying in here. I appreciate your support. I just didn't want to be the one who made the appeal to the moderators because, although I recognise its obvious shortcomings, I've had a hand in writing a large part of the article as it is, which could render me incompetent to judge in some "technical" manner (although my main contribution has been under "major concepts." I know these need some work (and they have been edited after I wrote them), but I regard it a kind of work in progress; as long as what is written isn't a direct piece of misinformation, it can't be bad to add a satisfactory, but not complete, definition of some concept; starting a heading, and leaving it as a possibility for someone else (or myself, in time) to fill in is better than omitting the heading until a complete concept of it has formed in an explicit form (in English, no less) in my head). I'd like to get some sort of cooperative effort going on the introduction (it's a hell of a topic to sum up), and, of course, on its summary in the philosophy article, which, strangely enough, is less informative than the introduction to this article. I also see that the phenomenology summary in the philosophy article needs a bit of work, and I know the phenomenology article itself needs a bit more work. The problem with phenomenology, however, is that it is "built" so that a further explication of the terms already mentioned, or the addition of more terms, will lead into a sort of ladder of explanation in that most of the special terminology/key concepts are tied into other key concepts or special terminology which will require further explication. I do not know if your expertise extends beyond existentialist phenomenology and existentialism towards phenomenology, but it would be good not to be the only one making/suggesting edits to the article.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the proposal now (I've been working this weekend, so it took me some time). Comments are in the talk for the article. However, it seems the IP has now started editing other philosophy articles as well, including phenomenology and ontology (I see he even linked the ontology article as a "source" for his own ramblings after having edited it to say what he claims). It smells of trolling to me, but then again...Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. We'll just have to see how it pans out then, but I'd be surprised if the IP was to be allowed to continue making the edits; he doesn't really seem to have any competence in the field at all. I don't know what it's like with his edits in other fields, like diabetes and computers (?!), but if they are the same as his "philosophy" edits, someone should look through what he's done so far.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's just making less and less sense. Check his last edit at the phenomenology article (already reverted).Der Zeitgeist (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll make a comment about it on his talk page.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There has been a bit of editing in the existentialism article (IP user again). I tried correcting, but I'm not sure every point comes across properly. I included something about earnestness in relation to the existentialist attitude, mostly because of things like Kierkegaard's Spidsborger, Heidegger's Das Man, etc. In other words, the point was to avoid having it look like all human existence, regardless of which "mode" it was in, would be constantly facing despair and confusion, etc.; only those individuals who face their existence with earnestness (and the inherent seriousness in earnestness) are "in" the existential attitude. Have a look and see if you agree, or if there is anything you feel you could want to edit. In addition, I've been trying to expand a bit on the phenomenological concepts in other articles relating to them, and in that context, I changed one of my previous edits to the empathy article (I don't think I finished what I was doing last time), but I feel it all became a bit.. incoherent. Any suggestions on how to make it clearer?Der Zeitgeist (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user (known IPs so far: 162.84.184.38, 71.247.12.83, 141.155.135.66 (and possibly 141.155.132.151, but there is no direct evidence to support that)) seems to have some sort of track record of making edits to topics in the holy name of "simplifying." These edits are usually written in bad English, and if they are disputed, they end up in a talk page argument where his only argument is "Do not block advanced edits by using consensus among a few friends, please! Or, do work harder and not block for months edits, like mine, when I am willing to put an additional effort to simplify text and make it more available to average reader, please! How many articles could have I simplified instead of wastefully arguing for months here about one little sentence, please?" (from the Diabetes Mellitus talk. My emphasis). He seems to consider himself an "advanced" editor even though his English is severely lacking, and he also seems to believe he has competence in a wide array of fields, from existentialism through economics to microprocessors (plus pipe bombs and polish villages if that last IP really is his). There has to be some way to make the admins take into consideration that he's an IP user without an account who has been making nonsensical edits in a range of (unrelated) wikipedia articles..? If they need more examples, a quick look-through of his previous accounts should yield some results. The problem remains that it is hard to block a user whose IP changes constantly, but it should do for now.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has a similar unresolved dispute over the lead to the diabetes article. Time for a RfC on user.KD Tries Again (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm just a bit frustrated because of having to spend the time I was convinced into spending on wikipedia on this as well as his behaviour.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just leave a note here: I concur. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

]

Request for assistance

Thanks for the note, KD. I have not taken much of an interest in Wiki for nearly a year now, simply because it was taking far too much time to deal with issues like this. On a quick look, there is a problem on Existentialism. The best thing to do is move slowly, insisting on citations. Have a good read of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and don't do anything that might be considered provocative. Your next step might be to seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Banno (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, I apologize. I just used it because it mentioned Bailon and Williams.

There is an

]

Phenomenology

I mainly agree with your edits, but there are a few things that seem slightly off, at least to me. Comments are in the talk page.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N. O. Lossky and an attempt at mystical (

. Here of course is the problem of libertarian/ indetermancy. [1] Russian mathmatical epistemelogical refutation of determinism and positivism.[2] Father Pavel Florensky was shot well its in the article..Remember Soviet means commitee. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groovie! Hey I am looking to clear up Noesis. I have found a loose comment online from an unnamed person (no kidding) that has really stuck with me as being really close to Noesis.

I can source most of it but I would like it to be encyclopedic..Here is the comment..

We seem to be laboring under the illusion that we can define "determinism" validly in terms of this discussion (or for that matter, overall). Determinism, as it has been lately conceived and at the broad scale, may be said to be an outgrowth of the corpuscular kinetic theory of matter and, more fundamentally, of a belief in the completeness and consistency of mathematics, by which - knowing initial states (mass, energy, vectors) of solid impenetrable bits of matter (atoms or some other subatomic particle) - one could fully determine not only their future evolution but perhaps (given enough information) determine their states at any point in the past.

Unfortunately, quantum mechanics has overthrown the first (corpuscular kinetic theory of matter) in the realm of physics. In the realm of "pure logic and mathematics", Godel and others (Russell, Turing, Church, and lately Chaitin) have shown that ANY mathematical system / formalism will be either complete and inconsistent or incomplete and consistent - either of which deals a deadly blow to being able to say such systems / formalisms are deterministic in and of themselves OR provide a foundation for some determinism of any other kind!

To put this another way, any complete mathematical system or formalism will be able to produce valid proofs that roughly state "This proof cannot be expressed in this system / formalism". Moreover, mathematical systems / formalisms will exhibit not only an irresolvable "un-decide-ability" in some of their aspects but will also contain basic elements (such as certain "numbers" or "points on a line") that are indisputably "there" (again by proof), but are not amenable to simplification and generalization by any theorem (less complex than the items themselves). AND ALL of these proofs were developed within various mathematical systems / formalisms themselves!

Hence, "determinism" may be said to be just as "illusory" as "free will"! In which case, one must find some other argument(s) against "free will" - whether "free will" said to be "real" or "illusory".

KD I have on top of this a tiny favor to ask so that there is clarity about the Rand and the Silver Age and especially the Revolution in general.[3]

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Russian article about Russian Philosophy. It is in Russian and then translated into English. [4][5] It has allot of the characteristics of disjointed and choppy Russian dialect. Hopefullly you can see why some of this stuff is very difficult to articulate reword and make fit into an English context. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the ayn rand page is worse than abortion, isreal/palastine, the N word, taiwan/prc....please dont join in. you will only lose your soul.Brushcherry (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry[reply]

Hard to decide whether it is indeed a complete waste of time, or whether it really does exemplify some problems endemic to the project.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

You know brushcherry is speaking the truth, its like the nastiest of things, like paranoid backstabbing ol fart academics sneaking around slandering you out of sight and you show up and the scholastic cult shuns you and you don't see it coming. LOL. Just kidding-You know I am tired of the whole thing. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo KD, best ease off notifying editors of the Afd, keeping

]

Notifying other editors of important decisions or votes is not agains

WP:CANVASS which was originally introduced to stop canvassing on external websites. Most democracies allow some form of notification, indeed it is essential to the functioning of a free society, eh Skom?Peter Damian (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It's generally considered poor form to selectively notify – Snowded, TallNapoleon and yourself have not been shy about stating your views of Objectivism i.e. may be "thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion" per the guideline. Regarding your second point, Wikipedia is neither a

free society, nor does it aspire to being either; whatever social rules are thought to be conducive to producing the best encyclopaedia are preferred. The discussion seems to have attracted outside interest anyway, so no worries, but I thought I'd try and pre-empt any unnecessary unpleasantness. Good day to all, Skomorokh 07:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I will propose the next Afd very quietly so as not to upset anyone.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

"whatever social rules are thought to be conducive to producing the best encyclopaedia are preferred" - an interesting concept - it depends what do you mean by 'best enyclopedia' of course. Best Peter Damian (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge votes default to keep, so that's why I closed it as kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, regarding your comment here, if you're ever up for a collaboration on a real philosophy article, give me a shout. I have a background in analytic and an interest in a lot of the pre-1940s continental milieu. Thought about bringing the Heidegger article to

]

I hear you. I do find it tough getting extended work done on Wiki philosophy articles because of the style of editing they tend to attract. I started getting Existentialism into shape last year, but the whole thing got sidetracked by a long war with an IP poster. I tried to help out on Heidegger earlier this week. I sometimes have grave doubts about the whole thing.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

My pleasure - anything I can do. :-) --

]

Shameless Self-Promotion

Taking a break from my day-job to share a thought. The next time an author wants to write a book on Wikipedia, it should include a chapter on all the obscure fourth-tier fringe authors who have tried to shamelessly promote their work on Wikipedia and have gotten busted. I suspect that it happens a lot more on Wikipedia than some people may think. The fringe noticeboard, for example, is filled with these types of cases. Get them involved in this case and forget about it. They won't tolerate this kind of nonsense, especially when you show them the research results from LexisNexis, Factiva, Google News, JSTOR, Google Scholar, Google Books, WorldCat, etc., not to mention the few negative chat-forum opinions of those academics who even bothered to comment (e.g., Sciabarra and Campbell). Take care, J Readings (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [6] It says it clearly in the lead:

"Hank Janson is both a fictional character and a pseudonym created by the English author Stephen D. Frances. Frances wrote a series of thrillers by, and often featuring, Hank Janson, beginning with When Dames Get Tough (1946). Many of the later "Hank Janson" novels were the work of other authors."

I don't see how the 'fictional' category does not apply. Or are you saying he IS fictional but just not American? In that case, would Category:Fictional English people be a better fit? Or perhaps Category:Fictional English Americans? -- œ^™ 21:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky one because Janson, like Ellery Queen, was a real person (writing under a pseudonym) and used the same name for his main character. So he's not a fictional character, and the article is about him rather than about the character in the book. Does that make sense? If we had a separate article about the character, I wouldn't balk at the category - although as you can see even the books aren't very clear on his origins. I did look at the Ellery Queen article to see how the categories were handled - and didn't find it very helpful.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Ahh I understand. Thank you. -- œ^™ 03:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Sylvère Lotringer - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that isn't enough work for you, check this out. Scary stuff...  Skomorokh  05:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am right on it, sure.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

If you have a chance would you take a look see at the above? I've tried to put a compromise in place but there are some pretty entrained attitudes --Snowded ^TALK 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just saw it all.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Just read your comment. The sequence started with "national socialist" or "nazi" question where I took a similar position to the one you suggested, namely that NS is more appropriate. When no progress was possible there I put a compromise in place which used both, and at the same time moved the Freiburg student quote to a later section. So no one disputed the sentence, it was the placement. --Snowded ^TALK 17:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the political problem is cited in the very first sentence of the article, I resist the suggestion that readers are misled by confining detailed discussion to the appropriate place in the article. Of course, scholarship in that area is way ahead of the current Wiki article, so it could use some work.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Agree with you on all that! If you have some references it would help - all my stuff on Heidegger is on the philosophy not the politics. --Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do have references. By coincidence, I have been catching up on the subject recently - the Faye book just came out in English. What we have here is a non-trivial dispute for once, because there is a genuine scholarly disagreement about whether the most important thing about Heidegger is his Nazism or his philosophy.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Sounds good, but I think we need to deal with out single purpose disruptive editor - hopefully the 3rr report and his someone patronising response to the admin involved will at least result in some constraint. --Snowded ^TALK 21:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that we can't deal with the issue until the reverting stops. What gives me pause is the knowledge that there are quite a few accredited scholars out there - agree with them or not - who would support the reduction of any review of Heidegger's work to that same single issue. This is why I say the dispute is genuine.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Well if we are to dismiss any philosopher on the grounds that made bad political choices then the body of work available will be reduced drastically. --Snowded ^TALK 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to that viewpoint, and there have been many thoroughly reactionary philosophers who simply didn't have the opportunity to be Nazis; but Heidegger remains a special case because of his standing and the specific political choice he made; and matters have been made worse by the patent efforts to cover up some of his activities - efforts which are ongoing.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Agree, covering something up is silly. You can't separate ideas fully from action. However I do think that Heidegger has (like Wagner in music) being selected as a totem, or symbol in which vilification or apologia are seen as the only available options! Either way we have a week to sort out a consensus and improve the article. --Snowded ^TALK 06:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have recommended Ott's book on Heidegger as a source of info on his Rectorship. I just ordered a used copy of Martin Heidegger: A Political Life by Hugo Ott and Allan Blunden (Hardcover - Nov. 1993), but notice it is from 1993. There does not seem to be a more recent edition. Does one exist? 70.184.237.31 (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said that Ott's book is the authoritative biography - so far, anyway - in German or English. I think 1993 is the extant edition. Maybe some more biographies are on the way, although nothing can be definitive when there are stacks of unpublished and unreviewed papers in the Marbach archives. As with Husserl, check back in sixty years.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

I am will shortly be posting to

with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of

who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project".

]

Easter egg hunt

I can assure you there are none, but you have been asked to look :o)

]

I'm having some difficulties with this one [7]. I can't see that what I wrote was confusing, can you give me a second opinion? Thanks

]

Thank you

Thank you for your sound comments, at Talk:List of Scientologists. They provide a rational, logical, and polite base for discussion, amidst other viewpoints. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not add unsourced additions regarding
  WP:BLPs to pages on Wikipedia, as you did at the article Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant, here [8]. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• You have done this, again, [9]. The source provided does not confirm that "Chef Chuck" is "Charles Howlett". Please stop. Please remove this poorly sourced info that fails
  WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KD, remember how we talked about what if the restaurant closed, on my talk page! It has! It's not really surprising. The article has been nominated for deletion again. Whether you are interested or not, I just had to let you know about it closing based on our discussion. Njsustain (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, after 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands of wasted man hours since that incident, that editor has had his administrative privledges removed. It is unbelievable that such obvious and egregious injustices, abuses of authority, and flagrant violations of the rules were defended by so many for so long. There are no winners here. Njsustain (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your interest in Darryl, if you're in the NYC area,broadly speaking, I invite you to

]

Hi,

I am considering asking for a deletion review in this case. The reason is that, despite votes to "keep," WP:CORP does not seem to have been applied when the discussion was closed. We know that "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." The only one offered in the discussion was a brochure published by the Alabama Tourism Board. This source does not provide coverage in depth (the text in its entirety runs "Chili burger & slaw dog"!). More importantly, the Alabama Tourist Board itself categorizes the brochure as a "public relations resource" (here). Per WP:CORP, as you know, local coverage does not established notability. What we have here is local coverage from a single sources and one claimed regional source which turns out to be a PR publication which does no more than list a dish offered by the restaurant. I am contacting you as a matter of courtesy to see if you considered these points before closing the AfD and refusing a relisting.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

• While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time? Stifle (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help with Walter Burley. I am planning to expand the article on William of Ockham significantly, as well as creating an article on the Studium Generale in London where Ockham almost certainly lectured, together with Wodeham and Chatton. Amazingly there isn't anything at the moment. I would appreciate your help as they will almost certainly try to delete the article. 109.154.120.120 (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit to this article was intended to ensure consistency in the matter of applying the period-cum-space method where a person was known by his initials but in fact you have left several instances (e.g., EM Grace and ES Carter) undone and you have left several typos around the article with double periods and so on.

I am not actually bothered whether you use WG or W G or W.G. or W. G. Grace, as long as the usage is consistent as it was formerly, but I am bothered about the accuracy and tidiness of the article. Would you please go back to it and ensure that the latter aspect is completed. Thank you. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 10:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think JH hit the nail on the head when he pointed out the usage differences between English and so-called American English. As it happens, I came across this article on the BBC site and you will see that it uses MCC in the same way that the BBC uses that format for itself. There is no right or wrong format but when an article has been developed to the extent that Grace has by using one format, it makes sense to stick with it. You mentioned that Fry's article has the period format. Well, I don't think I've ever done anything much with that article but if I were to start developing it and I noticed it has "C. B." all over the place, I would not change it. You have now restored consistency in W. G. Grace and you seem to have accepted the consensus view (i.e., on the site) that his brother's article should be called Fred Grace so can we let this storm in a teacup pass and move forward now?

As you obviously are interested in cricket, why not look at

WP:CRIC and see if you would like to join us? Given that you own or have access to several 19th century books, you could surely help to broaden our coverage of that period for which we need more biographies and information about seasonal and tour reviews. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

"I spent a lot of time inserting periods consistently". Did you really? As for your statement that "W.G. was iconic in its day, WG was not", I suggest you read that aloud and remember that people called him "Double-you-Gee". How they wrote it then and how people write it now is not the point at all. The point is that the article did have a consistent usage that was not in breach of any site rules and complied with the, albeit not mandatory, consensus agreed years ago by WP:CRIC. Then you come along with your insistence on "inserting the periods" and what have you achieved? Absolutely nothing. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks.

We are proud to tell you that you match the criteria to become a member of the Uncyclopedia cabal please contact our page with you answer —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stuart Holroyd 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/Stuart Holroyd 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 template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were involved earlier in the content dispute on Richard Manitoba. I have just had the article protected. Please come and add your 2c. Perhaps we can settle it. Thanks. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding his theatre credits. -

]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gilles Deleuze may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
ref>Francois Dosse, ''Deleuze and Guattari: Intersecting Lives'', trans D. Glassman, CUP 2010, p98)</ref>, developed tuberculosis in 1968 and underwent a thoracoplasty (lung removal).<ref>Francois

Thanks,

]

FYI

I have mentioned you on the

]

COI

I have mentioned you here [10] -Roberthall7 (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hi KD Tries Again,

I am reactivating WikiProject Objectivism. You are currently listed as a participant of the project. I am going to purge the list. If you would still like to be on the list, please comment below on whether or not you would like to be on the list. I will wait two weeks and update the list on August 22nd.

Thanks,

Michipedian (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have not heard anything from you, I will remove you from the list. Feel free to add yourself again if you would like to rejoin the project. Michipedian (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bill Hopkins disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Bill Hopkins disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]