User talk:Jjshapiro

Hello Jjshapiro, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and style guide pages are also useful. There is a sandbox which you can use to experiment in. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela 05:00, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Jjshapiro,

the images you upload are rather big (150 kbyte). Could you try to bring them down to some 30 kbyte? PNG might help getting your diagrams smaller, JPEG is not very good in compressing diagrams, and it creates ugly artefacts.

Especially [[Media:AdornoHorkheimerHabermas.jpg]] seems to be very big compared to the quality of the picture (b&w, dithered). -- JeLuF 19:52, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Image size
I have reduced the size of the images I uploaded and re-uploaded them. The only one I don't know what to do about is the chart/diagram, because it contains a lot of text, and I tried making it smaller and the text becomes unreadable, and today I got an image conversion program to convert to PNG, and the file became about five times bigger. Let me know if you have any more suggestions. Thanks for the input. Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:50, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * What is the original file format of the diagram? I would have to experiment with it a little since there are no 1-2-3 recipes, but I would tell you what I did afterwards, of course.
 * The Adorno/Horkheimer image I reduced to 8 colors, the original image had probably 4 different colors, all other color values are due to JPEG artefacts. After that, the PNG has half the size of the JPEG. Converting the JPEG to PNG without reducing the color depth resulted in a file four times the size of the JPEG. I use IrfanView, a tool that is freeware for private use, educational use and for charity orgainzations. -- JeLuF 06:49, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The chart is generated with a lovely program called Inspiration, which is used for making charts, diagrams, mind maps, outlines, etc., and from its own internal format it exports to JPG, BMP, GIF, etc., but not PNG. In general I export to JPG.  Would it be easier to convert to PNG from some other file type?  Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:24, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * JPG is a so called "lossy" compression format. It is designed to compress photos. When using it with drawings, diagrams or other images with few colors and high contrast it generates ugly artefacts and too big files. GIF is a format for drawings, but it is restricted to 256 colors. If your drawing doesn't have more colors than generate a GIF first and convert it to PNG (We don't like GIFs here due to some patent issues). If you're having more than 256 colors, generate a BMP and convert that to PNG. If the resulting PNG is to big upload it and drop me a note at User talk:JeLuF, I will than have a look at it. -- JeLuF 08:15, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, JeLuF, the GIF patent is expired. So that restriction is moot now (PNG is still more versatile though). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:39, 2005 September 9 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! Just the information I needed.  These charts have only a few colors, so I will try the GIF --> PNG method. Jeremy J. Shapiro 12:18, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just discovered that my program does not in fact export to GIF.  But I tried BMP and then converted to PNG, and it did create a very small file with good quality graphics. Jeremy J. Shapiro 12:41, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have cut your text-heavy "diagram" from the Frankfurt School page entirely and moved the content of it into the article text, verbatim. It is IMHO totally contrary to the spirit of wikipedia to embed text content in images like that, where it cannot be searched for, modified by subsequent editors, or enhanced with hyperlinks etc., thus insulating it from all critical reaction on the part of the rest of the wikipedia community.89.176.31.200 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Unverified images
Thanks for uploading these images: I notice they currently don't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know their copyright status? (You can use if you release them under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 01:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Image:Arlesarenes.png
 * Image:Arlesviewwithrhone.png

Also:
 * Image:UniversityofFrankfurt.jpg
 * Image:UniversityofFrankfurt2.jpg -- Kbh3rd 01:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind – I see those were taken by you, therefore GFDL upon upload if no other license claimed. Thanks for your contributions! -- Kbh3rd 01:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Adornohorkhab1.png
Hi, do you mind if I upload your picture to Commons (to be used in de-Wikipedia etc.)? Or do you want to do this yourself? Thanks! (pls answer here) --Svencb 21:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to do so. Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To do list for self
Convert Inspiration diagram to text, eliminate self name Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC) ENIAC/EDVAC

Frankfurt School
If I understand correctly, you are giving GFDL permission for the previously-published portions of text that you contributed to "Frankfurt School", not the entire original article, "The Critical Theory of Frankfurt". (If you were contributing the entire article, then it would be best to place it at Wikisource, our sister project for verbatim GFDL or PD source materials). "Permission" is a red-flag for those concerned with copyrights because it often really means "limited permission" instead of a full GFDL. Of course, when any of us contribute material that we write to this project we agree that it is GFDL and can be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will." So long as we know that the author/copyright holder made the contribution then that alone should theoretically suffice, in my non-lawyerly opinion. Anyway, thanks for contributing. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * (Material from this publication has been used or adapted for the present article with permission.)


 * Yes, your understanding is accurate. And I haven't even gotten around to thinking about what to do about my entire original article.  And since anyone can completely change the portions of the original article that are included in this Wikipedia Frankfurt School article, in a way it doesn't mean anything, since by five years from now there may be none of "my" original article left, and that's fine with me -- I do think of my portions as being with full GFDL.  I am merely trying to be nice to the Times Literary Supplement, since they like to have it mentioned that something was originally published there, and I think they're a wonderful publication.  But perhaps there's no meaningful way to do this in the context of the "merciless editing and redistribution" environment of Wikipedia. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Need for an article
Hi Jj!

You should write an article on yourself. At least a bio-stub! Velho


 * It hadn't occurred to me that I might merit being in an encyclopedia! And it would seem narcissistic to me to be a contributor to Wikipedia and also have an article about myself.  Does Wikipedia have articles about contributors?  Actually I realize I have no idea of what the minimum criterion is for someone being the subjecet of a Wikipedia article.  The question has arisen for me when I've seen wikilinks to the work of certain scholars who, while they may have written an interesting book, don't seem to me of global interest for being in an encyclopedia.  On the other hand, when I think of some of the popular cultural phenomena and people to whom Wikipedia articles are devoted, perhaps I have too lofty a conception of who merits an article?  Jeremy J. Shapiro 01:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you should have a WP page also, FWIW. Not because you are a Wikipedia editor, which is not "notable" in itself, but because you seem to be notable as an academic/theorist.  You're the translator of some Habermas, right?  I confess I don't know much else about you (maybe I should), but if you can point me to some other blurbs, such as what your faculty page say if you have a current academic appointment, I'd be happy to start a stub on you.


 * This is sort of a "floating signifier", but I got diss'd a bit for creating a bio article on myself (though I did not write the words, but rather copied the first version from another bio of me elsewhere on the web, that I did not write; and I did it because Wikipedia had referred to me in several other articles). There is a semi-guideline about not creating "vanity pages", which autobiographies may qualify as.  But my detractors didn't actually care about my bio page, they were just being petty and vindictive about an unrelated WP dispute.  Still, to be safe, I would be happy to write a bio (or at least bio-stub) of you if you point me to a few sources that say a few words about you, that I can summarize and combine. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:32, 2005 September 8 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your offer. Could you point me to such a bio-stub or bio on Wikipedia (of a "minor" academic/theorist/researcher) so that I can have a mental model of what one looks like? Jeremy J. Shapiro 14:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I wrote an article on my colleague Lewis Gordon who might be a "minor academic" in the right sense. Of course, that's just what I wrote, not any official WP standard.  There is an article on me (David Mertz, but it's not really about my minor philosophical work, but about my computer writing which is more widely read).  My erstwhile semi-major professor Robert Paul Wolff really deserves a better article than he has, but I made it slightly less bad than it had been.  I dunno, that's just my own editing.  Try taking a look for colleagues/friends of yours whom you think might have articles; some probably will, and of those, some will be better done than others (and feel free to improve any :-)). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:28, 2005 September 8 (UTC)


 * Mind-boggling!!! Robert Paul Wolff is my erstwhile professor too!!!!  You'll see that I recently added his Kant books to the reference section of the Kant article!!!  He's the person who initiated me into the Critique of Pure Reason and into what doing philosophy seriously consists of.  The professors I had before him just summarized what philosophers' theories and doctrines were.  Wolff got you inside the arguments.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Really? Did you go to UMass too? (and were we good friends :-), memory ain't what it used to be). Or was this back when he was teaching at Columbia?


 * I really loved Bob's "Kant Summaries" approach (did he do that when you took it). Even more, to me, than understanding the first Critique itself, was how effective was the exercise of having to trim every single word possible without losing meaning. For other editors who chance by: the general exercise was that each week you had to summarize a certain page range of the Critique (not exactly simple material), but you were strictly limited to something like 5 pages; as in, it was an F if your summary went a word over that. Probably it would be good training for lawyers who have limits on briefs, though IANAL. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:36, 2005 September 8 (UTC)


 * No, he was my teacher when I was at Harvard (graduated 1961). He was my philosophy tutor as well as Critique of Pure Reason professor, in which we did those summaries just as you described.  That was one of the top learning experiences of my whole life. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It's curious that someone calls himself «a "minor" academic/theorist/researcher». It was me who started this section, I just forgot to sign it, so I did it now. Velho 02:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thought -- and your signature. I didn't mean to devalue myself as a person or my abilities or the work that I have done, which I actually think is good and in certain ways unusual.  But in the larger scheme of important intellectual work that has an impact, my own is modest.  Partly, like many, I have been held back my own psychological conflicts; partly I have been in some ways more attached to being a bohemian and an "homme moyen sensuel" than to being a major academic/theorist/researcher; partly, because I studied with intellectual giants (e.g. Habermas, Adorno, Marcuse, Barrington Mooore, Jr., to name a few), I think I was too overwhelmed by their accomplishments; partly because once I've gotten a good idea out, I don't care about developing it in all its implications and make a career out of it (which isn't a bad thing to do) but tend to be more interested in going on to other things..  In any case, I think I'm minor enough that it's not self-evident that I should have a bio in Wikipedia, although the idea doesn't freak me out.  And perhaps in our culture where everyone wants to or does have their Warholian 15 minutes of fame, I shouldn't run away from mine.  Anyway, I'll think about what my bio-stub would look like. Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi.
I'm not stalking you; these articles are just all on my watchlist... --goethean &#2384; 18:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful message. And I wasn't at all feeling stalked. To the contrary, I was experiencing the presence of a congenial mind. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree Jeremy!
regarding your questioning of validity and justification ??

geist (philosophy)

'Encyclopedia - book, often in a number of volumes,giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject''' ! Greek ekuklios paideia - all-round education your criticism of geist (philosophy) doesnt seem to be very constructive at all. And I strongly disagree! The Article on Geist is still only a Stub and can be perhaps integrated into another Page at a later stage. But at this time it is still growing ,there are several contributers and besides that I dont really understand what your problem is? On the Geist talk page you write about Dasein and Geist,terms widely used in Philosophy, and here you question purpose,existence and even justification of our Page and subject. This page deals with aspects and the subject of Human Spirit, with already many good valid links! It may not be important or valid to you ! If you dont like it,go back to the Mc Donald page or whatever takes your fancy ! I do question the validity and justification of your critique at this early stage. It is unhelpful and rather negative ! If you could be more constructive and positive in the future, I would appreciate it .Thanks

Guss 04:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your welcome to me on the surrealism Talk page, since I don't feel that welcome there. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You may be more welcome than it feels. I suspect some folks are battle weary from the ongoing contentions about the article. I thank you for your well reasoned and well written comments. >>sparkit| TALK << 19:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your comment. As someone who considers himself a relative newbie on Wikipedia, or perhaps just because of naivete, I'm shocked that there are people working on articles who aren't genuinely trying to produce good encyclopedia articles but just in spreading propaganda.  But I realize that that's naive, because it would seem crucial to fundamentalists and ideologists to have Wikipedia articles reflect their belief systems.  I found myself thinking before that ultimately some of what we're seeing in that discussion is just a microcosmic version of the problems of fundamentalism and terrorism that exist in the world as a whole, i.e. the gesture of reverting a page because it doesn't correspond to one's orthodox, true-believer conviction about a topic that one has defined as the core of one's belief system is similar to the gesture that underlies terrorism. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Being naive and relative newbie, I too was surprised at the promotional intents found on wikipedia. My mind is spinning with the idea of the relationship of POV pushing and the terror atmosphere in which we live. Is it that spin is so much a part of our culture now, that not only do we expect to hear it, but do many folks now believe it's required? (George Carlin's "American Bullshit" keeps coming to mind.) I'm struggling with words to express this. Maybe I'll have more clarity on it later. >>sparkit| TALK << 03:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A few thoughts. First, George Carlin is one of my heroes -- and, as you suggest, he is absolutely the most fantastic deconstructor of crap I've ever heard.  I love the one he does about religion and God, also the one that includes all of the advertising slogans of American culture in one monologue.


 * I'm fond of that piece, too.


 * Second, regarding the surrealism "discussion" and reverting, I had an illumination this evening, namely I suddenly realized that the people who are acting obnoxiously and anti-cooperatively on the surrealism page may actually not be "true believers" of surrealism but rather may be "trolls". I say this because I read the article on trolls in Wikipedia and realized that the description there applies to these people who are being unco-operative about surrealism, because it seems as though they are more interested in sowing antagonism and dissension than in producing a good encyclopedia article even from a "true believer" point of view.  When I looked today at Daniel Boyer's latest revision to the introduction, in which he put in a whole section about how surrealism is not an artistic movement, I looked back at the article's first sentence, which doesn't focus on the concept of artistic movement, and thought, "someone would only be making this change if he were wilfully trying to be hostile and antagonistic", since the first sentence already says that surrealism is more than an artistic movement.  And since the other guy won't engage in any kind of even semi-rational dialogue, I'm now thinking that they're not true surrealists but perhaps just troublemakers or "trolls".


 * The behaviour is certainly troll-like. Disruption is also a revolutionary tactic. Regarding Boyer's addition to the lead, since the article is weighted to the artistic aspects of surrealism, he may be trying to balance that. Though there may be other intents, of course. At the moment I'm wondering, if the focus of surrealism is not art (visual, writing, music), are there doctor, lawyer, laborer, real estate agent adherents to surrealism?


 * And, third, I do think that the true believer syndrome and the spin syndrome are very important cultural and psychological phenomena right now, although I don't think they're the same thing. I think the true believer syndrome really is a fundamental psycho-social phenomenon in many cultures and among many people, who for some combination of reasons are stuck within a kind of authoritarian and fundamentalist mentality and can't rise to the level of critical thinking (very ironic to find this mentality among surrealists, who used to be non-conformists par excellence and critical of authority -- a surrealist true believer is a contradiction in terms, although it looks like we have a couple on Wikipedia -- whereas I think that the spin phenomenon is something specifically characteristic of contemporary American culture, as you've suggested, i.e. people who are living out the advertising and salesmanship way of being.


 * Yeah, the spin thing is peculiarly American, or at least Western, and the true-believer thing seems world-wide. This zealotry chills my heart. I don't recall such sharpness from these quarters 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. It's odd, very odd. Though, if the principles of group think as I understand them, hold true, implosions are in the works. But, I've thought that for several years now.


 * I don't know if you've read Harry Frankfurt's little essay "On Bullsh*t", but one of the great points he makes in there is that people who are lying know what the truth is and are being insincere when lying, whereas people who are bullsh*tting are being sincere!!! They no longer have any kind of recognition or regard for truth.  I think that the terrorists are more in the true believer camp and want to destroy or attack people who are deviating from their sense of true belief, whereas spin doctors and bullsh*tters would probably kill or attack people only out of convenience or not to lose face.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I did read Frankfurt's essay a few years ago. Perhaps it's time for me to read it again. (Speaking of spin doctors, I've gotten three... THREE! telemarketing calls today.) Anyhow, the bullspinners are for the most part more annoying than destructive.


 * Not only terrorists want to destroy or attack those who deviate from their truth, but those who attack the terrorists seem to me to be doing the same thing. I see no sanity in any of it.


 * Well, that's all rather dark, eh? I think it's time to dance and sing. >>sparkit| TALK << 02:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also just a quick thanks for trying to keep some sanity with the Surrealism page.. i havent followed it that well but some editors seem not to listen to any sort of reason Cfitzart 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Critique of Kant
To: Jjshapiro, You might find interest in the article that I am starting to build entitled Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy. I am trying to résumé Schopenhauer's constructive critique of his idol. Lestrade 17:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade


 * A few thoughts: 1) Perhaps you should check with the Wikipedia Philosophy Project to see if in general they are trying to have such articles about the major philosophers, so that there's some kind of standardization across the encyclopedia. I haven't checked, perhaps they're already encouraging such articles.  2)  It seems to me that an article on that topic shouldn't be limited to Schopenhauer but should summarize some of the main criticisms that have been made from a number of points of view, both in the immediate post-Kantian period and in the 20th century.  Probably also should have something on how the neo-Kantians responded to various criticisms of Kant.  This would all certainly be a stimulating article but would be a large project on which it might be worth getting several people to collaborfate.  Seems to me that if you're limiting yourself to Schopenhauer, then it should be part of the Schopenhauer article rather than part of a general Criticism of Kant article.  3)  To me the existing Kant articles, e.g. the main one as well as the one on the Critique of Pure Reason, are still so deficient that I at least will probably continue focusing on those rather than on critiques.  But I wish you success with your article. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As a result of your comments, I have parenthesized Schopenhauer's name after the title of the essay. That should signify that the article is referring to a specific essay and not general criticisms of Kant's philosophy. There are many such articles in Wikipedia that have a book or other individual written text for their subject matter. Lestrade 20:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade 20:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

Bach opening
Hi, unsure what your recent change adds. Tony 08:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I was trying to avoid the wordy expression that was there before. I don't mind going back to it. Tony 11:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Good edit...
...on "weight training". Can you do the same on the previous guy's goofy edit. I'm worn out.Sfahey 13:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I had noticed that the anon. editor on the "history" list just before you for the article had made an entry that was similarly "personal"/non-encyclopedic to the sentence that you just revised. It needed the same touch. Sfahey 19:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "...and their increase in strength is proportionate to that achieved by men." I've read it through several times, but that phrase still doesn't make any sense to me (sorry). Do you mean that if a man can increase his strength by (say) 25% with a certain amount of exercise, then a woman also increase her strength by 25% with the same amount of exercise? That's a bold claim: not necessarily wrong, but not one that I have come across before. We should probably pop in a reference to justify it&mdash;do you have one handy? GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've just rewritten the phrase to try to clarify it: I hope you feel that it still expresses what you wanted to express. No hurry for the reference; I just feel that it's controversial enough of a point that a visitor to the page might delete it if it isn't backed up in some way. (Plenty of my points have suffered the same fate!). Thanks! GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * At 900+ edits and 2+ years of history I don't see you as a newbie at all! I have no more experience than you, really, except perhaps regarding the article in question, which I have found does tend to attract wide interest, and particularly from anons etc. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I was wrong. You have slightly under 750 edits. To find that out I just accessed this URL, and reduced the number on the end of the URL until "next n" link on the resulting page was activated.
 * I guess you're right, it is important that the article provides good information, although my comment was actually intended to suggest that many of the editors might be a little ... ahem ... naive. You are quite the exception in this regard! GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Habermas
Thank you, Jjshapiro, for your kind comments. Actually, I am trying to rework the article, "Between Facts and Norms". Hope I don't slaughter it, LOL. &mdash; PM Poon 21:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeremy, you are obviously a big fan of Habermas! Feel free to edit the article on "Between Facts and Norms". I have no doubt that you can make it very much better. And thanks again for your kind comments. &mdash; PM Poon 02:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, I shouldn't be writing this article then! What happened was I found this article in the copyedit listing sometime back. After I copyedited it, I removed the copyedit tag, but it was put back again, cos the tone of the article was not suitable for an encyclopedia. A few days back, I saw the article again, and decided to rewrite, cos it is almost impossible to copyedit the old article. &mdash; PM Poon 04:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeremy, don't get me wrong. What I was trying to say is that you are more qualified to write this article than me. Obviously, this article can be improved. Would be glad to learn something from you. &mdash; PM Poon 07:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Shapiro,

I can work out a consensus agreement with on the issue of, "Surrealism is a Revolution". Please indicate to me exactly the reference sources that indicate that Surrealism is not a revolution. I really can work with you on this issue, or we can discuss the aspects of revolution on the context of the rest of the article. I really want to work this issue out with you. Thank you.Classicjupiter2 01:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Apology and thank you note
Hi Jeremy, I am sorry for not replying to you promptly. Almost went down with a flu, and could not think of how to reply to your message. Honestly, the "Special thanks" list was not up to date. I didn't realize that anyone would read it. Since you have mentioned it, I must either keep it updated or else delete it. Thank you for drawing to my attention. I will keep it.

This section was actually meant for my reference, because I had to count my blessings in an environment that is admittedly quite hostile. Many a times in the early days (as if there is anything other than "early days", LOL &mdash; being active with Wikipedia for only about 2 months), I had wanted to give up for good, but the attraction of writing kept pulling me back. &mdash; PM Poon 20:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Schelling
I saw your discussion at Talk:Hegel and wonder if you would be interested in working on the Schelling article. It's a copy of the public domain 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica article. It's pretty awful, and totally POV. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy, thank you very much for your comments and your analysis of hostility within Wikipedia, and please forgive the late reply.

My problems with Mel started when he tagged one of my first few articles, and being a very blur newbie, I wrote to him to find out where I had gone wrong. That was when my nightmare began. He seemed to be haunting me after that, whenever he "caught" me editing against his advice. Subsequently, his friend, Phronima, came along, and I thought it was Mel under another pseudonym. Their characters were so similar, even up to the quirk of making sarcastic remarks on the "Edit Summary" and their insistence that they are the authority in the English language.

Mel is a perfectionist, and you know what perfectionists are, LOL. He doesn't seem to see the big picture and the philosophy behind a community portal, and therefore acts like a policeman when he should be acting like a counselor. I bet he must have chased away quite a number of potential contributors, LOL. I am truly amazed that he teaches Philosophy in Oxford, as I always thought that philosophers are always philosophical... like yourself, for example, LOL.

Anyway, I have nothing against Mel, especially so, since he has stopped bugging me, LOL. Either that, or he was too busy fighting his RfC. My latest interest is in translating articles into the Malay language so I will be spending considerably less time here. &mdash; PM Poon 05:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
...for reverting the Amadeus fan; I was getting tired of doing it. By the way, if I haven't said it yet, I really appreciate your contributions here on Wikipedia, on Mozart, Mahler and elsewhere; it's good to have you on the project. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The Surrealist Links
Hello Mr.Shapiro, How are you today? I have decided that your idea was just brilliant and I totally agree with Sam Wegtor that all of the links should stay. I just have one surrealist link to add. Thank you so much for your input into the Surrealist Article, Mr.Shapiro. Surrealism deserves the integrity and respect that you have given it.Classicjupiter2 01:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Shapiro
Mr.Shapiro, I know that you are real busy, so when you do find the time, I need your help in addressing a vandal (and troll) over at the SURREALISM Discussion page. I just need your advice and feedback into how this person can just go away and stop harrassing the article. The user's name is, "Ernie and Bert". Here is their post on the Surrealism Discussion page,

"Did you know that the good professor Fuchs was at our halloween party last weekend? He sat next to us in the hot tub. BTW, both ernie and myself are simply delighted that Keith Wigdor's link has been added to the page. The entire page looks splendid. Also, we're going to have thanksgiving in our bathtub this year, so everyone is welcome to stop by that day for some marijuana and a little turkey-basting. Surrealist greetings!" --Ernie-and-bert 02:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you help me in addressing this unfortunate incident with this user. They have a friend, DALE MICHALE HOUSTMAN who is trying to use Wikipedia for cheap promotion as, "Surrealist Satire" and all they do is attack and slander the great surreal/visionary artist, Prof.Ernst Fuchs online, which is not right.Classicjupiter2 03:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Weber's Thesis
I undid your page move. See Talk:Weber's Thesis. You should probably have waited a bit longer before doing the page move as well - you only gave it about a day; if you're going to ask for people's opinions (and you were right to here), you should give it at least a couple of days. Rd232 talk 14:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * you said on Talk:Weber's Thesis "I see that I should have left my original request in the hands of administrators to make the appropriate move." - not at all, you can make the move yourself using the Move button, once there is agreement on where to move it to. But you should really wait more than just a day to see if anyone else has any opinion on where to move it to (or even whether to move, though the case for that in this instance is very strong). Regardless, I only undid the move because of the history issue. Rd232 talk 17:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you copy and paste text from Article A to Article B, the information about how that text was developed over time (edits by who and when - the page history) stays linked to Article A, and in Article B the system just puts it down as one big edit by you at one time. If you use the Move button, the system knows to move the page history and attach it to Article B (by rewriting parts of the database so those previous edits point to Article B). Essentially, if you use the Move button everything is taken care of. (Unless the target name already exists, then it needs an admin and can get pretty complicated, but normally the Move button does it all.) Hope that's clear. Rd232 talk 23:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Identity (philosophy)
Thanks for adding the section on Hegel to Identity (philosophy), which I've cleaned up (mostly by renaming from page from Identity, which is now a disambiguation page, to Identity (philosophy), and removing some material unrelated to philosophy). But I lack the expertise in philosophy to help the page much more. I think what's there is correct, more or less, but the page (as a whole) is very poorly written, overly abstract, and unapproachable. Nobody else is working on the page (that I know of, at least); I for one would appreciate your revising it as much as you like. Best Bryan 12:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism article split
When you get a chance, would you please look at my proposal on the Talk:Surrealism page to create a separate article for current surrealist groups and artists, as a possible way of dealing with a lot of the nonsense and juvenile and hostile behavior that occurs on that page and with regard to the Surrealism article itself, and see what you think? Thanks. Jeremy J. Shapiro 22:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A fine idea, Jeremy. I've thought about it before. BTW, I no longer "watch" the surrealism article because of the juvenile and hostile behavior. In fact, I took a month away from wikipedia because of such behavior all over wikipedia, in addition to the widespread lack of understanding of NPOV. Just ain't worth the trouble. Sparkit 00:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting proposal, I will look at it in more depth. I floated something similar a long time ago, so I'm in favor of the idea on principle. The question is whether the practice can be made to work, there is a two year long revert war on the Surrealism articles, originally between rival present day individuals claiming the mantle - not for me to decide whether they are justified. Glancing at it looks productive and generally in the right direction though. Stirling Newberry 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing
Okay, I'll jot down edit notes as you requested. Sorry for the inconvenience. Go for it! 09:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings
Since you return to Wikipedia, I hadn't had the chance yet to cross paths with you and state my appreciation of the incredible volume and quality of work that you uploaded on this site. Of course, it is quite a rare honor to have an individual who has studied under some of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century volunteer so much time on a free website. So, I feel compelled to say so now.

BTW, I'd be quite interested in your input on Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, which I am worried threatens the important consensus on article content "No original research." I'm sure than hardly anyone on Wikipedia is better qualified to when and how categorizing historical actors according to loose culturally constructed concepts falls in this "original research" realm. If you have time, please take a look at the AfD.

Best regards,

172 22:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Shapiro
I have made you your own article on wikipedia. I think you are probably sufficiently notable. Is it accurate? Is there anything you think should be added, family etc?

Sincearly yours,

Charlotte Hobbs 18:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Questia and Spencer
Regarding this, I think you may want to revert yourself, my logic being: if we ban all non free primary sources, we may as well ban most of the academic journals and such. True, not everybody has access to Questia, JSTOR, ProQuest, etc., and free versions are preferable, but non-free, restricted reference is preferable to no reference at all, wouldn't you agree?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ode to Joy
I see that you have put back Beethoven's alterations and additions into the German text of the poem. When I removed them earlier, I explained my reasoning on the talk page. I would appreciate if you explain your reason for putting them back. EldKatt (Talk) 16:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

wikimodel.com modeling causality help wanted...
Hi Jjshapiro et. al. who enjoy facilitating quality wiki work.

I have synthesized a wiki at http://www.wikimodel.com for modeling causality. I would greatly appreciate additions to the work in progress! Thank you --Dialectic 00:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Reinhold
If you have any free time, you may be interested in my additions to the Karl Leonhard Reinhold Wiki article. I am in the process of trying to expand the article and would appreciate any comments that you would make. You may be aware that Ludwig Friedrich Otto Baumgarten-Crusius recommended Reinhold's Letters on the Kantian Philosophy, along with Schopenhauer's Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy, as the two best works on Kant's philosophy.Lestrade 18:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Schema(Kant)
Another article that you may find interesting is Schema(Kant). In it, I have been trying to explain Kant's schemata in a perfectly clear and understandable manner. If you have any opinions on this subject, I would appreciate them.Lestrade 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Kant on Dimension
Dr. Shapiro, you may be interested in the controversy that I became embroiled in by adding one sentence of Kant's writing to the article Dimension. In Prolegomena §12, Kant briefly explained why space has three dimensions. This explanation was decisively rejected by Wikipedia's mathematical readers. The teapot tempest can be seen in Talk:Dimension, Section 9. I am curious to know if you see any defects in my presentation.Lestrade 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

B-tag at Kant
Hello Jeremy. The Kant article has been tagged by a user as a B-article in need of inline citation. I have disputed the need for this and asked for concrete examples, but since you wrote a majority of the article you may want to give it your attention.Amerindianarts 14:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Was the bio info on Kant all sourced from Keuhn?? Thanks. Amerindianarts 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Grosse Fuge
Your edit of this article set me to thinking. You suggest that the reason the Grosse Fuge is less accessible (my term, actually) is its "dissonance and contrapuntal complexity." First of all, while I have an intuitive sense of what inaccessible means in music, I couldn't define it. Second, I am not convinced that the reason for its inaccessibility is its dissonance or its contrapuntal complexity. I can think of works that are much more dissonant (the Ravel string quartet) or contrapuntally more complex (Verklarte Nacht) that are immediately accessible. There is something more profoundly different about the Fuge that makes it hard to understand - "You thought you understood the difference between music and noise, but, here, you see, you didn't!" It seems to be emphatically outside the box, but, once listened to again and again, it actually clarifies that what you thought was the box wasn't.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) 06:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Information about a Surrealist Link
Hello Jjshapiro.

I noticed that you've done some work on the Surrealism page. I just wanted to propose for the External Links on that page a site I created devoted to information about Surrealism.

Many years ago, I contributed to Wikipedia, but haven't lately. Rather than adding the link myself, I thought I'd introduce it to people who have been working on the Surrealism page to see if you feel it is appropriate. I welcome you to check it out and consider it as an external link for the Surrealism page. I feel it offers a great resource for anyone interested in learning about Surrealism.

The site is: Surrealism-Plays.com

It includes the following:

1. Information about Surrealism

2. Surrealist Writers

This Section features biographies on: Jacques Vache, Andre Breton, Louis Aragon, Philippe Soupault, Paul Eluard, Benjamin Peret, Robert Desnos, Antonin Artaud, Roger Vitrac, Jacques Rigaut, Rene Crevel, Michel Leiris, Georges Limbour, Raymond Queneau, Jacques Prevert, Max Morise, Jacques Baron, Jacques-Andre Boiffard, Giorgio de Chirico, Rene Char, Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel, Federico Garcia Lorca, Pierre Unik and Paul Nogue. As well as other writers Associated With Surrealism: Comte De Lautreamont, Tristan Tzara, Rene Daumal, Roger Gilbert-Lecomte and Georges Bataille.

3. Surrealist Books

This section features an extensive book list, featuring hundreds of books relating to Surrealism and by classic Surrealist writers.

4.Surrealist Artists

This section features a list of many of the artists associated with the Surrealist Movement, as well as links to their official websites.

5 Surrealist Poems

This page features poems by Lorca, Breton, Eluard, Desnos, Peret, Artaud and others.

6. Surrealist Documents

This section features documents & manifestos from the Surrealist Movement in Paris, in their entireties, including Breton's FIRST MANIFESTO OF SURREALISM, Breton's WHAT IS SURREALISM?, Aragon's WAVE OF DREAMS, Dali's THE CONQUEST OF THE IRRATIONAL, the preface to Artaud's THE THEATRE AND ITS DOUBLE, Artaud's TO HAVE DONE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF GOD, etc.

7. Surrealist Art

Including pages devoted to the art work of Dali, Magritte, Miro, Tanguy, Ernst, Man Ray, De Chirico, etc.

8. Surrealist Film

Including information and stills from several films by the Surrealists (mainly Man Ray & Bunuel/Dali), with links to pages where the films can be viewed in their entireties.

9. A page devoted to the films of Luis Bunuel

10. A page devoted to the Belgium Surrealists

11. Photos of the Surrealist group in Paris during the 1920s & 1930s

12. News of Surrealist exhibits and events around the world, as well as publications

13. Links to other sites relating to Surrealism

Currently on the site, there is some promotion of a book of surrealist plays I wrote, which will be there for a few more months. I don't know if that is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. In any case, I welcome you to check it out and consider it as an external link.

I really appreciate your time, consideration and the work you put in at Wikipedia, which I find a very useful site. Thanks again.

bashkiewicz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashkiewicz (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Existence precedes essence
Hi. Check the discussion page on existentialism. I'm not sure the recent edits contain the meaning they should, but you probably had a good reason for editing it, so I prefer discussing it instead of just changing it suddenly.

You should probably also check the discussion on lifeworld, as I see you followed the request for philosophical elaboration on it. I tried giving a definition of lifeworld (it's in the talk page), but I feared I would confuse rather than inform. I thought about bringing in Husserl's concept of motivation, the lived-body, and to clarify all the lifeworld/homeworld/alienworld concepts better, but it would've just kept on getting bigger and bigger. Mainly because it is such an important concept, but also because it can quite literally be tied to analyses of everything and anything.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Culture
This article used to be a trainwreck and I have been trying to rewrite it to cover all academic approaches to "culture". The section on "cultural studies" is weak, and one topic that perhaps could be better explored is the idea of "critical theory" as an important theme of or infuence on cultural studies' approaches to "culture." Could you look at the section and see how you could develop it? Thanks Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Permission to use your image
Hi Jshapiro, I would like to use your image of Adorno found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AdornoHorkheimerHabermasbyJeremyJShapiro2.png in a brazilian TV serie entitled "Critical Uncertainties". Please email me at teka.carbonell@gmail.com so we can talk a little bit more about my project. Thanks, Teka. PS.: Are you the same user of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jshapiro)?--Teka.carbonell (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)