User talk:Maven111

File:U-image-5.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:U-image-5.gif, 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. Rockfang (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

U-procedure and Theory U
Hello and thanks for creating this article. It has been tagged as of dubious notability. If you are able to improve the article, please look it over. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=581348423 your edit] to Rudolf Steiner 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ]], Saul Bellow, Dr. Hauschka, Weleda, Bernard Lievegoed, Camphill Movement, [Karl König], Brian Goodwin, Henri Bortoft
 * 3|pages=261–273|doi=10.1386/stap.27.3.261_1}} cinema director Andrei Tarkovsky; http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/Layla.html [Nostalghia.com|The Topics:

Rudolf Steiner Press on Rudolf Steiner page
I looks like you may have had two edit sessions going simultaneously on Rudolf Steiner and your changes did not all make it into the final edit - the external link to Rudolf Steiner Press was there in the first, then gone in the second. Or perhaps you decided not to add the link after all, but it's not clear from the summaries what you intended.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  22:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Rudolf Steiner page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=724063360 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F724063360%7CRudolf Steiner%5D%5D Ask for help])

Rudolf Steiner
I appreciate your wish to improve the lead, but the wording was quite confusing. Let's take this to the talk page and discuss it.

I do wish to mention, however, that you should read Help:Minor_edit, which specifies that this should only be used for edits involving "typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." I would be careful with this, as people tend to get touchy about it. Cl ea n Co py talk 13:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Clean Copy, Thank you for the guidance advice. I will pay attention to that. I should have been more strict in not using my own interpretation. Regarding RS, I am not sure why you have reverted. My changes might require some grammatical adjustment, although they looked pretty clean to me. Is it perhaps that you don't like the content? I am confident that the edit was factual, and if necessary at this point (this is an opening summary only and I intended to return and give more substance if necessary to the body) then I would add references. However, your edit leaves out aspects of his positioning as an individual and the influences on his work. One could add hundreds of influences or say there were none for as widely studied an individual as Steiner, but I wanted to emphasise the science as scientific method (his formal study, and the subject of many of his lecture courses, and the field of his early reputation), and so on. So I am inclined to revert unless you can give me a reason more substantial than "wording was quite confusing", which it did not seem to me to be. Maven111 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Rudolf Steiner for further discussion on this. I am wondering if you are perhaps not a native English speaker (the occasional lack of articles hints at a Slavic native tongue, but that's a shot in the dark), and if this is so, I would respectfully suggest that you listen when native speakers give you feedback about comprehensibility, grammar, etc. Cl ea n Co py talk 23:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting speculation!!


 * See also External links. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted your recent edit for several reasons. First of all, some of the content simply was not true; he did not gain initial recognition as a philosopher and scientist; in fact, he was never widely recognized as either of these. Other content goes into too much detail about certain particulars of his work for the lede: why emphasize these and not others here? Finally your edit summary claimed that this was a revert to a previous edit, which was also simply not true. Cl ea n Co py talk 10:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay — I missed this. I disagree with your statement: he certainly did gain significant recognition as a scientist and philosopher as is covered in every significant biography, and elsewhere. But I do not say "significant", simply recognition, as significant is a debatable quantity. So I believe this should be reinstated.


 * Give sources and, preferably, wording to support this. Encyclopedia Britannica says he is a scientist?  Really? What edition?  A link would also be helpful.
 * And editing someone else's scientific works does not qualify one as a scientist!  Cl ea n Co py talk 17:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Clean Copy I put the references into the reference section, including a specific link and access date. You are referring to my edit note about it, not the edit. I also think it's rather important to recognise that no one is asked to edit the scientific works of the person considered to be one of the most distinguished German figures of the 19th century who is not regarded as a first-rate scientist. He spent eight years (as I recollect) on the editorial work and his content is still being studied, in fact even more, over a century later. I am aware of the fact that in writing this I'm simply giving a general expert opinion but take an analogy: suppose somebody was assigned to edit the archives of Stephen Hawking, or perhaps more modestly, Gregory Bateson, would they not be considered to be an expert in their field before the appointment and even more of an expert at the end of several years of work? Quite frankly there is such a huge body of support for the fact that he is a scientist, it is not credible to keep arguing about this. There may be other subjects about which you can argue such as whether you agree with his later more esoteric work. But no one would consider Newton not to be a scientist, or Boyle, and they were deeply involved in esoteric work as is very well documented. that is a whole different story.


 * I would ask you to provide secondary or tertiary sources that support him being considered a scientist. If this is so widely considered to be the case, there should be plenty of such sources.  Note that the one you provided is self-published ("Selbstverlag") and therefore not usable as a Wikipedia source.  Again, that he edited works by a scientist indicates that he was considered a competent editor of such works (by at least the publisher, one would hope), but not that he was considered a scientist.   Cl ea n Co py talk 18:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Clean Copy, I am struggling to understand your problem. First, I have done so: give such references. Second there are such a host of evidence that I either imagine you don't know much about him or that you have some prejudice or alternative evidence on the subject that I invite you to surface. You are contesting what was a central thrust of his life from doing a scientific degree, to a scientific/philosophic PhD, to best-selling books, to circulating in the scientific milieu of Austria and Germany, to major projects, to agronomy, courses on physics, economics, years of teaching in an institute and so on. This does suggest someone needs to look at the whole piece and see if another section is required. Best wishes


 * Could you give the references here that are neither 1) self-published, nor 2) by Steiner himself? I have not seen any such.
 * Incidentally, Steiner never had a degree in any scientific field. He did have a Ph.D. in philosophiy, but that is not a science.  Cl ea n Co py talk 18:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read the linked references that are already there (assuming you or someone have not deleted them). Also and btw: If we were to remove as evidence all of the scientific works of every scientist from the available evidence of being a scientist then there would be no scientists left. Steiner went to one of the most prestigious specialist scientific universities in the world at the time, where he studied mathematics, chemistry, physics, geology theoretical mechanics, with a specialisation in mathematics and graduated in 1883. I think your becoming persistent without credible basis for your argument. You can find a quick overview of this at the Encyclopaedia of Biography (http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Sp-Z/Steiner-Rudolf.html). Since this appears to be new territory to you, it might also be useful to know that, at the time, German language description of the different and various domains of knowledge was not the same as in the English-speaking world. The term Giesteswissenschaft was used to describe more than 50% of all of the domains of study, and this continued I believe until after the Second World War. If this was to be literally translated into English the most common version would be "spiritual science". The concept here is that all forms of knowledge that depend on something beyond the purely sense based empirical involve nonmaterial mental, rational, or in other words spiritual as opposed to material understanding (see physics and metaphysics for a comparison). This includes mathematics as well as philosophy, theoretical physics, and many other subjects. Steiner particularly selected the technical University with its emphasis on both science and the practical engineering (which have been so important in Germany) because of his down-to-earth interests but he separately and independently also attended philosophy in other classes at the other University of Vienna.  The philosophy PhD that you refer to focused on the philosophy of science, not general philosophy (although he wrote a book containing history of philosophy later). It particularly relates to the scientific work of Fichte. I quote from the introduction for you: "The discussion which follows aims so to formulate the problem of cognition that in this very formulation it will do full justice to the essential feature of epistemology, namely, the fact that it is a science which must contain no presuppositions. A further aim is to use this philosophical basis for science to throw light on Johann Gottlieb Fichte's philosophy of science." Since you are taking so much of my own User Talk, I think I would like to move this whole section to the Rudolf Steiner talk page. And I think this subject is now closed.

The one source you have linked to here (notablebiographies.com) only terms Steiner a "philosopher and...mystic." It also does not claim that he graduated from his university; indeed, he did not. The links you placed in the article included one self-published work and Steiner's own works, neither of which forms a WP:Reliable source. Geisteswissenschaft in an academic context translates to "Humanities" in English; in Steiner's usage it frequently became "spiritual science," but one should not conflate the two. Cl ea n Co py talk 13:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Read it carefully: it says 1883, it lists the courses. That's why I gave it, for limited offline purposes. The next time that you produce actual quality evidence of him not being a scientist, I will take your criticism seriously, otherwise the substance of your criticism appears to be that you don't want to believe the facts.

I would like to say, that I appreciate the seriousness with which you go about the processes of knowledge, but one needs to be constructive to invite collaboration and cooperation. On the basis that there may be some people who might have a prejudice, when I have enough time I may add a complete section to beef up this argument but for now it meets an independent judgement and can rest.

Edit warring on Laws of Form
Your last edit constitutes Edit warring. I am considering reporting this at WP:ANEW. Thoughts? Paradoctor (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Paradoctor, I don't know why you should say so. The original delete of the whole section did not discriminate different kind of content. I noticed it with interest years ago and assumed some folks would update, which they did not. So I reinstated it and then removed some paragraphs as I thought they lacked sufficient rigour. The resonances, which may not be the best title, are real from my own scholarship, that is there is a tradition of thinking, not necessarily mathematically, precisely the originally form of The Laws of Form found in numerous mystical traditions. If I get round to it I intend to add one or two. the remaining items might need further work. But at least gives them a place for that work. Unless you have a prejudice to the idea that there might be a tradition of thinking similar formal distinctions, which I cannot imagine, this is an improvement. For avoidance of doubt, I inserted the whole section back in order to make changes, and I found you had put it back while I was still editing.


 * Thanks for the prompt reply.
 * You seem not to be aware of important Wikipedia policy, so let me please explain. Verifiability is a basic rule. Fine print aside, it means that if anyone asks for a reliable source, you must provide first. You are not entitled to reinstating the challenged text without a source, no matter what your intentions are. If you do it once, it's a mistake. If you repeat that, it's called edit warring (<- please read), and can easily lead to you being blocked.
 * "original delete" ... "did not discriminate different kind of content" That is because I checked every single entry, and every single entry was without a reliable source stating that the entry's subject was related to the Laws of Form.
 * "real from my own scholarship" Please read WP:OR. Original research is simply not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * "gives them a place for that work" You know that you can work on a draft in your own WP:USERSPACE?
 * "Unless you have a prejudice" No. Please read WP:AGF. I do with regard to you. I don't consider your violations of Wikipedia rules intentional or malicious in any way, so please do me the courtesy of assuming I am not doing what I do because I "have it in" for you or your ideas. We have the rules in order to improve Wikipedia, not to punish.
 * That's a bit to read. If something I said was unclear, please don't hesitate to ask. Paradoctor (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response.
 * A few comments. First, I have not instated any content based on "original research", although I would argue in another situation that there is no such thing as scholarly content without it. It is not for nothing that writers for Ecyclopedias are generally expected to be experts in their field. The point is that one is not using Wikipedia to host one's own (original) research. I simply remarked in a side note that I could see from what I knew that the content might have relevance if it was properly treated.
 * Then, my point was not to reinstate the whole section, but merely that the procedure that Wikipedia allows is first a reinstatement and then an edit. If I missed a better way my apologies.
 * The reason I deleted some content was because it was not clear to me from the content that it related to The Laws of Form, even if it might with a different writer. The reason I left some sections is because I could see that they did have relevance or it was at least debatable. I thought that by giving the editors a chance to debate that it was a service. What seemed not debatable was removed. When you say that you checked every source, I am not sure if that means you read the Gathas or just the text that was there (to give on example). By deleting them separately it gives others a chance to review them independently.
 * At the moment you have cited no authority for your assertion that the remaining items are not relevant except for your opinion. I am not questioning your intelligence on the subject or your knowledge of the rules, just that it is unsupported argument. If we were to look at them one by one it could be that either of us could change our mind.


 * "have not instated any content based on "original research"" Yes, you did, with this edit. I am not saying it is your research. But both Tijfo098 (his edit) and I consider that section to consist of original research.
 * "not using Wikipedia to host one's own (original) research" Nobody else's, either. Not if it hasn't been published in a reliable sources, and a citation to it is provided.
 * "writers for Ecyclopedias are generally expected to be experts" Wikipedia is fundamentally different from traditional encyclopedia with regards to the editing process. Anyone, regardless of WP:CREDentials, can, and is in fact encouraged, to edit. This means that differences about article content can only be stably resolved through reference to the literature. This in turn can only be done through showing the sources a claim rests on. That is what our fundamental principle of WP:VERIFIABILITY is about.
 * "the procedure that Wikipedia allows is first a reinstatement and then an edit" As I pointed out before, that is not correct.
 * "The reason I deleted some content" There seems to be a misunderstanding. The edit that deleted some entries was fine. It was the one directly before it that is the problem.
 * "giving the editors a chance to debate" We debate using sources. Without sources, we'd only be exchanging personal opinions on the article's subject.
 * "you say that you checked every source" I didn't say that. I said "I checked every single entry, and every single entry was without a reliable source stating that the entry's subject was related to the Laws of Form" (added bolding). Different things.
 * "you have cited no authority for your assertion that the remaining items are not relevant" I don't have to. I explained that already. The WP:BURDEN of proof that a claim belongs in the article is on "the editor who adds or restores material". That is you, in this case.
 * "read the Gathas" That might convince me that they indeed contain thinking analogous to that in LoF, but that would only be my opinion. But to be included in the article, we need more than that. We need a source. A source any reader can look up, to confirm for themselves that the source indeed says "the something, something in Lof is analoguous to the something, something in the Gathas". Without that, the Gathas do not rate mention in this article.
 * Ok, that's it for today. I will now delete the unsourced claims again, and we'll talk more when you're back with sources, right? Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I am about to go travelling for a couple of days, so if my next reply is delayed, I apologise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maven111 (talk • contribs) 12:38:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No apology needed, we are all WP:VOLUNTEERs here, and you are free to come and go as you please, without anyone having a right to complain about that. Stricly speaking, you didn't even have to inform me. I take it as a sign of good citizenship and thank you for it. Paradoctor (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Paradoctor, I think people show themselves in their actions, and you show your good nature. Thanks

Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of energy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Induction ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/History_of_energy check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/History_of_energy?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link action
Corrected the link to post to Inductive reasoning.