User talk:Archivingcontext

An essay on personality
Hi - I see you've got a draft of an article in your userspace. Looking at it, I'd say it's been copied from somewhere else. What was the original? And have you looked at other articles on books? Getting It: The Psychology of est was a featured article (see WP:FA, you might want to look at it. At the moment it looks more like an essay on an essay I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * RE:
 * Thank you for your welcoming message. I am not sure if I should be flattered or defensive about your remarks here. I'll err on the former and say that the philosophy and influence Roberto Unger should be better represented on Wikipedia. I have thus sought to create entries for his most influential books. The draft you see here is my understanding and explanation of the key ideas in the book. It is not copied from anywhere else!


 * As for being "an essay on an essay," well, it is meant to be an entry on a book. In crafting it I referred to other entries on books by Foucault, Kant, and Hume, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_of_Human_Nature. Although my entry here is a somewhat different, all entries do vary. Archivingcontext (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First, take a look at how I've indented your reply and mine. It was the numbers, that made me think it had been copied from somewhere else, what do they mean (I think something to do with lines or sentences)? It reads like an essay partially because of the questions.
 * Oh my, that Hume article is dreadful and doesn't do him justice. It should be all about what third party sources have said about it, not a Cliffs Notes. Sorry, but please don't take that as a good example. There is another major issue, not just the lack of what third party sources have said about it, but that you are building it upon your understanding. Take a look at WP:NOR would you? I don't want to put you off, just put you on the right track. You need to start from scratch and find sources other than the author. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice and input, it is most helpful. I have set about revising the article based on your comments. It seems it was taken live before I was able to finish, however. Hopefully my changes on the live page are sufficient for the meantime as I continue to edit. Archivingcontext (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

False Necessity
Hi. I see you requested input on "False Necessity". As a professional philosopher, I was a bit worried to see only references to Roberto Unger's work -- no critiques, no commentaries were cited. As much as we can make any one scholar our hero, it is useful to put our heroes in context. To which theories is Unger reacting? Why? What is the value-add of Unger's work? In a day and age where we are bombarded with information, it really is worthwhile to state context and relevance up front. Why should anyone care about Unger? I am confident that you can answer these questions! Wingroras —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your feedback. You are absolutely right. My short reply is that I am still working on it and your helpful comments spur me on. Part of the issue is the need to sort through all the reactions and responses and to organize them for the entry, and to integrate those to address the questions you raise above. You can see that I created the "background" section in attempt to address this in part and am aware that I need to continue to flush that out with other references besides Unger's other books. (I wanted to get the theory down first and make sure it was on the right path, as well as encourage others to contribute.)Archivingcontext (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Archivingcontext. False necessity is a much better entry now! Motivation and context are significantly strengthened. Actually, it is a very interesting idea. Almost Hegelian: structures have inbuilt in them their own conditions for transformation/destruction. Two further suggestions. (1) It would help right away to have references to WHO the "necessitarians" are. For instance, you might want to add references to the second sentence: "It is foremost a critique of necessitarian thought in conventional social theory, which holds that parts of the social order are necessary and the result of the natural flow of history." i.e., who are the necessaritarians of "conventional social theory"? [BTW, I find this aim to be laudable: "It develops a full attack on the idea that human societies must be organized in a certain way, e.g. liberal democracy, and that human activity will adhere to certain forms, e.g. homo economicus." We do indeed live in a time with little imagination for alternative forms of life&living!] (2) It would also give the reader more context and make the view seem less isolated and "it sprung, like Athena, from the head of Zeus fully formed" if you added a little information about the SOURCES OF INSPIRATION for Unger and even something about how the theory of false necessity has DEVELOPED in Unger's work. You do this a bit in the "Background" section, but not sufficiently. It adds credibility to any view to point to direct sources of inspiration. as Newton said, even he could only see as far as he had because he "stood on the shoulders of giants". BTW, this phrase is unclear. please fix: "carry this idea to the hilt," Hope this is of help. Looks much better now. Still room for improvement! Wingroras —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Thanks again for your feedback, this is all very helpful. I will work on making the changes you suggest. Archivingcontext (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
And thanks for helping out by providing feedback to some others.

File:Unger Lula.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Unger Lula.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 10:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Unger prisons.jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:Unger prisons.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 10:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Unger medal.jpeg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Unger medal.jpeg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 10:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Unger press.jpeg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Unger press.jpeg, has been listed at 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 if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Unger files
Hello, about the "Agencia Brasil" licensing for File:Unger Lula.jpg: we don't seem to have a local equivalent of the Commons template commons:Template:Agência Brasil, so we will need to work with the normal cc-by-sa tag plus a link to the A.br. page. However, before anything of the sort can be done, we first need to have clear proof that the image really was published in this way. Have you got a direct link to the image on the A.br. website? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For the Unger medal.jpg file see here: http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/galeria/2008-04-18/18-de-abril-de-2008#

for the Unger lula.jpg file see here: http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/galeria/2007-06-19/19-de-junho-de-2007?foto=1705fp701 As an example of a picture used from the website on Wikipedia see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mangabeiraunger19062007.jpg Thanks for your help. Archivingcontext (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Unger at office.png
Thanks for uploading File:Unger at office.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Žižek / Holbo / Hello!
Yeah, you're totally right... Holbo's not really saying anything about Z's Marxism here (even though I think that is part of the underlying beef). It seems to me like Holbo has barely read Z at all and just reacts to him in blog posts saying 'oh how ridiculous'. I think probably Holbo's criticism should be folded into some larger section. Anyway, it's great to have someone paying attention to the Žižek article and I hope you stick around. I also see that you've been doing some work on Unger, and I think that's great. Thanks & Peace, groupuscule (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I was thinking of expanding this sub-section by incorporating the recent NYRB article on Zizek ( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jul/12/violent-visions-slavoj-zizek/?pagination=false ) and some of Unger's extrapolations that attempt to carry through Zizek's social criticisms to an articulated program. Give me a couple of days to work with it. Archivingcontext (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect. groupuscule (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Unger at desk.png
Thanks for uploading File:Unger at desk.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Karl Marx". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

AE Ballakisten
You tagged the AE Ballakisten page for lack of citations. I will add a few more and others have said they will do the same. Please take a look. If this is ok for now, can we remove the tag? Doinggreatthings (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will change the tag to one that says it needs more citation. You need to fill in your citations for the bio. Also the citations that you do have are incomplete--article titles are required. Archivingcontext (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Žižek / Unger
I wonder how come Unger gets into the lede about Ž, while Žižek gets no such "special guest" treatment in article about Unger? DancingPhilosopher ( talk ) 14:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question. Ask doinggreatthings who put it there. (I would suspect because Unger's thought is profoundly more comprehensive and systematic than Zizek, who is more of a critic than philosopher.) But I would not object to removing Unger from the Zizek lede. Archivingcontext (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Roberto Mangabeira Unger
Sorry for the mistake in the page. Thanks for letting me know. (N0n3up (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
 * No prob. Thanks for your attention to the page. Please do continue to edit the page as you see fit. Archivingcontext (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Zizek Bibliography: deletion of Russia Today publications
Hello Archivingcontext,

I write to you, because you have been editing the Slavoj Žižek Page. I'm editing the Zizek bibliography. Here I also mention the op-ed publications on Russia Today. There is a WP editor who holds the opinion, that these edits violate RSP. I can't see how this is applicable. You can read my argument here. The editor doesn't respond.

If you have an interest in the subject, I would be happy, if you could contribute your opinion. If you don't have an interest, maybe you know someone else who might have?

With kind regards.

--Quin451 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)