User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 47

Quotation marks
Thanks for sorting me out over those quotation marks.Phase4 12:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recommendations on the Benjamin M. Emanuel debate
Hello again, looking at your response to my post (now in your archive section) I see that you make recommendations for me:
 * “I suggest that you look a little more carefully at the article history.”

When I followed your advice I saw that you reverted away the edits I made deleting the information from blogs.
 * I had done so citing such wiki-standards as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Biographies_of_living_persons
 * (Emphasis added) "Biographical claims about living people need special care because of the effect they could have on someone's life, and because they could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page."

I deleted the poorly sourced contentious material on 19:31, 10 January 2007 but in little over an hour they were reverted back in by you at 20:38, 10 January 2007. And then you told me on my user-talk page to "stop...deleting large swathes of text". I also noted in the history page that you were an early contributor to the article that included the blog statements at 10:33, 7 January 2007 and 10:29, 7 January 2007. A fact you don’t mention in the AfD discussion.

You wrote on my talk that I must have "some personal or political axe to grind with regard to the articles on this family". I knew that you were referring to my editing out any poorly sourced contentious material asserting an association with Irgun on the wiki-pages of his sons. So I looked at the history pages there and you had edited those as well. I saw not only did you allow poorly sourced contentious material to stand in an article (such as the sentence "was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization" on the Ari Emanuel page which you edited on 10:35, 7 January 2007) but you inserted it yourself on the Rahm Emanuel page on 19:47, 9 January 2007 writing that "Benjamin M. Emanuel, was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization". You neglected to put in a source for that claim, perhaps you could tell me which blog you were citing, was it the one that blames 9/11 on the Jews or the one that asserts his father was a professional assassin without any evidence?

Your other notable recommendation for me is “I suggest that you calm down, stop spluttering, and start thinking.” I’m sorry if you think I’m not being calm, would it help if I used emoticons or a different font? Perhaps you could point out where I am “emitting or making sporadic spitting or popping sounds” and becoming the very definition of spluttering (a fun word I must say, nice to see its still in usage – I’m trying to encourage the use of the word “nifty” myself). When you say “start thinking” you obviously must be saying “start thinking faster” because obviously I could not type if I couldn't think. If that is what your saying then I apologize for my slowness, it seems I can only think about a few things at a time and right now I just keep thinking about the standards for libel and wondering if you violated any of them with your unreferenced post to the Rahm Emanuel’s page, and your reverts reinserting the poorly sourced contentious material on Benjamin M. Emanuel’s article. Sorry to be so slow. Stay nifty :-)
 * Wowaconia 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Mel Etitis, as per the points you placed on my talk page, first I agree that it is a mistake on my part to use the word slander when it is technically libel.
 * I do disagree with your claim that “The article doesn't declare that he's an assassin.” The article cited the bloggers belief that Benjamin M. Emanuel “participated in the assasination of Swedish diplomat Folke Bernadotte in 1948” and by doing added credence to those claims which would otherwise have no credence whatsoever. The blogger was neither reliable nor notable and adding skeptical caveats around his comments does not issue a blanket licensee to use such claims. His comments should never have been included in the article at all as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability
 * (emphasis added) “Sources of dubious reliability: In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s).”
 * In other words, by your argument I could use my birth name and publish a blog that claimed Jimbo Wales was a murderer and then as Wowaconia I could go to the Jimbo Wales page and write “While the author of JimboWatch.com is not noted for keeping track of his sources, he declared his certainty that Jimbo Wales was the true killer of Nicole Brown Simpson, others remain skeptical.” I do not believe your claims follow the wiki-standards.

I agree that my comments became emotional, because I became frustrated that you an Admin. inserted an unreferenced claim into the US Rep Rahm Emanuel page on 19:47, 9 January 2007 that "Benjamin M. Emanuel, was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization" and then began defending those claims on the page of his father. You also claimed that I had “some personal or political axe to grind with regard to the articles on this family” and then you declared on the AfD discussion that I have “some sort of problem with the articles on members of this family, which seem to involve protecting a politician against what he sees as negative facts. he shouldn't be allowed to get his way on this”. The only way I can extend any kind of good faith to your actions in this is to assume negligence instead of maliciousness, perhaps you didn’t read the blogs you were defending. But then I still am left wondering why you made that edit on the Rahm Emanuel page without citing anything, not even those anti-Semitic blogs.
 * I hereby in the spirit of good faith request that you instruct me on why my running perception that your post to the Rahm Emanuel page was libel is mistaken. I hereby admit that the knowledge of this action has colored my perception of you during this debate and await the reasoning that will counter such impressions.
 * --Wowaconia 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just read your response on my talk-page and I think you misunderstand my request. I am saying that my perception of you was biased because of your edit on the Rahm Emanuel page [that is documented here] and with full knowledge of that edit, I made, perhaps wrongly, the conclusion that all your actions were an effort to assert the truth of that edit on the Rahm page. I had believed that this is what was driving you to defend the blogged material on his father's page which was presumably the source for your edit on the Rahm page. Please explain why you made the edit to the Rahm page and failed to use any sources when you did so. That one edit is what makes me wonder if you committed libel and then felt compelled to defended libelous blogs to support that first act of libel. If you can just explain the real reason for that one edit than I can re-adjust my perceptions. The question is on that one edit.--Wowaconia 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reinserting contentious material originally posted by an unsigned IP is still called an edit and an addition, and still requires a reason for doing so. If I replace deleted vandalism I would still be called a vandal. If someone replaces deleted libel they are still responsible for their edit. I would prefer to think that you did not commit libel, but I don't know what your motive for insuring this claim was included in his page was. Why did you choose to reinsert this contentious material that was without any reliable source?--Wowaconia 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that my questions are badly expressed. Please explain your motivation for reposting the unsourced claim on Rahm Emanuel's site that his father "was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization".--Wowaconia 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Okay, so I'll spare you the copy-and-paste thanks! Appreciate your kind words... The Rambling Man 19:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Al-Kindi peer review
Hi there.

I noticed on the talk page of al-Kindi that you contributed significantly to the article in the past, and on your user page you mention that you are well-qualified in philosophy. For that reason, I would greatly appreciate it if you participated in the peer-reviewing of the article, especially those sections which deal with philosophical thought.

Thankyou in advance,

Alexander.Hainy 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson and WP:DATE
Deepest condolences for your losing the will to live. I thoroughly sympathize. However, it seems to have been caused by removing the commas between "month day, year". Our Manual of Style section on Dates uses those commas. Is there something I missed? AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's strange: I looked at WP:DATE, and can find a dozen examples of using the comma, but not a single one of not using it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense now, thanks. Carry on. I think I saw your will to live somewhere - could it have rolled under the couch? AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Boggart
lol (now, there's an abbreviation I've never used, but it's hard to sincerely convey amusement otherwise) - I'm sorry you got dragged into arguing about boggarts. I've explained the issue (in excessive detail) to causesobad on his talk page, and have fixed the subject on the article in question (since its placement there was poor anyway). So hopefully, there won't be any issue about that anymore. Thanks for your input! Michaelsanders 21:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy again
Hello again. I do understand the deep emotional pain that you would undergo if you were to go near the philosophy page again. I do understand that. You did some sterling work in the past and I even archived a talk page where you held out splendidly. But I am feeling pain now. Not so much pain, more the kind of feeling when so many people disagree with you that you perhaps begin to question your own reason or abilities. All I ask is you drop by the Philosophy talk page, and look at my contributions then at the attacks on me, and let me know on my talk page if I really am going insane. If so, I will seek professional help of a non-philosophical kind. Best - Dbuckner 10:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Sorry. However, I will not be seeking psychiatric help at least, so, thank you for trying.  One benefit of this has that it forced me to trawl the depths of my library for definitions of philosophy, and so I am a little wiser as to what, say, Arnauld thought of philosophy.  And thanks once again for trying.  If I am every in Oxford I will buy you a pint of Guinness.  If I knew who you were, of course.  Best Dbuckner 17:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Irene Papas
Hi! I wonder, what exactly do you want to stress by saying that Irene Papas is a Greek-born and not a Greek? Greetings! Sthenel 13:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * She was born in Greece, her mother-tongue is Greek, she is of Greek ancestry, she votes in Greece (she has the greek citizenship). So, if she is not Greek what is she? Please you should change it! By the way "Greek-born" means "born in Greece by non Greeks", it doesn't match to her. Sthenel 14:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah but "something-born" is used like this "She is American-born to Greek parents" to stress the birthplace and the origin when they are different. Irene Papas was said to be candidate for the Municipality of Athens but she changed her mind finally. That means that she has the greek citizenship. Sthenel 15:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:Rantshole
I blanked the page because I have had enough, and I certainly did not want to welcome this person to Wikipedia. If you look at my sub-page at User:RolandR/Vandalism, you will see that this was yet the latest in an ongoing campaign of stalking, harassment and abuse against me. Over the past couple of months, this person has created dozens of ids -- many of them deliberately ridiculing my name -- purely for the purpose of posting his scatological and pornographic abuse of me on to scores of Wikipedia pages. As soon as one user id is blocked, he creates another. Since he is apparently using an anonymiser, Wikipedia appears unable to put a stop to this obsessive behaviour. I can guarantee that he will be back, in less than 24 hours, using another offensive id and posting more abuse. RolandR 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Yes, I am a moron. I'll go and correct my mistake now. Sorry! Tom Harrison Talk 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply
The problem with Ludvikus' edits and comments on the talk page are quite apparent. More might have been done, but for Dbuckner's laps. I'd left this page, out of frustration, many months ago; I fear it is a lost cause. But I stand by my three suggestions. Banno 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

hide page edits
I apologize for not being logged in before, but anyway.

So, when faced with a more polished and organized article, you decided to revert for issues that are present in the old version? At the very least, I provided further organization. Why didn't you just edit my edits for style, and then place citation needed markers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vespertilio (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Smackbot
I'm not sure what happened ...
 * I am... I lost my main PC and had to retype some stuff, and got it wrong. Thanks for telling me. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42 14  January 2007 (GMT).

Demons
Hi,

well Descartes demon is irrational of course, he destroys all reason, now an idea of such an irratinal being may not itself be irrational, which is what I presume you are getting at.

And I agree, but what is it when Descartes is not yet at the point of rationality and posits the demon? It is at a second order to rationality. Also the cogito does not deny the demon it only affirms itself so insofar as the subsequent part of Descartes argument fails he is left in an irrational state.

I can also make the comment that any brave new idea might be irrational within the previous system.

--Lucas 16:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange discussion, on two pages!

You say I use the word irrational in a strange way compared to the usual. Of course, it is the topic we discuss, but sorry, no appeal to some norm. Anyhow, I think you should read meditions again, the demon destroys all mathematics, all the truth of sense perception, etc. You say:
 * the hypothesis of the demon is perferctly rational

Well I never disputed the rationality of an hypothesis made in general, just one made at a certain point in Descartes journey. Perfectly ratinal would be if he could get out of hyperbolic doubt and he does affirm that even if there is a demon it is he who is being fooled, he is in a state of irrationality except for the, imperfect rationality, that he exists. Now people dispute that Descartes argument works for the rest of the meditation where he gets back his rationality through God etc. Certainty is exactly where rationality is, there is little more certain than 2+2=4 for most people.Lucas


 * You suggest the demon destroys nothing, this is false within the meditation, there, all sense, all mathematics, everthing is falsified for him and for the world, since he and the demon at that stage are all there is in the world. Outside of this world of the demon and descartes there is no ratinality, nothing that is the point of the meditiation.  The only thing he can believe is the cogito and this is an imperfect ratinale since he still cannot believe in extension, the world, senses, math, etc.


 * Yes the whole mediation and not just the demon is a way of coming to this conclusion ("a tool" as you say) but that is all from a perspective outside of the meditation. Within the meditation irrationality is pervasive.  Your use of the word rationality and what it is not is rather negative and imprecise it is not belief but measurable belief. --Lucas


 * You insist on staying outside of the meditation. Again I know these are hypothesis, that all of the 'I will supposes' are hypothetical until you live the reality of what is supposed and believe it.  For example, Meditation II.12 when he introduces the demon with 'I will suppose there is an evil demon...extremely potent and deceitful' it is mere hypothesis.  And yes it is all within an overview of asserting an unknown something, but that is just overview it is not sure till the end, and it could have failed.   However, within the hypothesis, along the way of the meditiation my points apply.  There the demon exists and destroys all rationality for Descartes, he can only hold onto one last thing, an imperfect rationale, the cogito.
 * To enter the meditation you have to live the reality of the meditation, and begin to believe the suppositions otherwise it doesnt work; just think about what is said here by the earnest Descartes:
 * I shall at least do what is in my power, viz, [ suspend my judgment ], and guard with settled purpose against giving my assent to what is false, and being imposed upon by this deceiver, whatever be his power and artifice. But this undertaking is arduous, and a certain indolence insensibly leads me back to my ordinary course of life; and just as the captive, who, perchance, was enjoying in his dreams an imaginary liberty, when he begins to suspect that it is but a vision, dreads awakening, and conspires with the agreeable illusions that the deception may be prolonged; so I, of my own accord, fall back into the train of my former beliefs, and fear to arouse myself from my slumber, lest the time of laborious wakefulness that would succeed this quiet rest, in place of bringing any light of day, should prove inadequate to dispel the darkness that will arise from the difficulties that have now been raised

--Lucas 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The quotation above demonstrates not what you said, but the extent to which Descartes was inside the meditation, and the extend to which he had convinced himself to believe it, such that the belief was such an "arduous" task. Of course we are both writing outide of the meditation, I have made it abundantly clear that I've been talking about the inside of the meditation where the irrational appears. In this sense, and after this long discussion, this is what I meant in that comment you queried about the irrational in Descartes' demon. I did in that comment refer to the demon not the project of the meditiation and so was talking from within the meditation.

Of course I agree with you, it is true too that Descartes is almost the defining figure for rationalism, but he needed the irrational demon to get there.

Anyhow nice chatting with you and glad to meet you, regards, --Lucas 00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

rational enquiry
I know you don't want to go near that plague hole, but if I could just ask a question here. L has argued that 'enquiry' is by definition rational. Note he spells it 'inquiry' which means something different, I think. But in any case, an enquiry is simply an investigation, isn't it? I'm beginning to doubt everything now. Perhaps he's right. He keeps on with such persistence, I am almost persuaded. Dbuckner 17:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, many thanks. The demons example is very persuasive.  As well as, er, pertinent.  Dbuckner 17:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I thought a bit more - Aquinas talks a lot about demons, and he is always rational, up to a point. I am also translating Bonaventura's Book II Dist 3 of the Sentences, on the identity of angels.  This is all philosophically interesting stuff (the principle of individuation is matter, but angels are immaterial, so how is one angel distinguished from another?).  But I'm sure you are right, an enquiry is just asking things, in a silly way or otherwise. Dbuckner 17:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User:JFBurton
I'm the person JFBurton made the somewhat incivil comment to (if you recall, he followed my post about being away to grieve for my grandfather's death with a comment that it was a good thing, as I spend far too much time on Wikipedia). I wasn't the person who asked for the block- all I asked him to do was refrain from posting on my talk page unless he needed to do so to work on Wiki. I've added some context to the discussion to |ANI, including diffs, which I hope you'll take a look at. Even though I didn't ask for the block, I would hate for you to think I was just being oversensitive in asking this user to stop making edits in my userspace. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input regarding User:JFBurton
I appreciate the input you have given. Everyone needs a sanity check once in a while. The main reason I was so insistent about the block of this user was that no other method of prevention was working. I have reduced the block from 4 days to 48 hours(from the original block time) in deference to the concerns by you and others that the block may have been for too long. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Olson
I did make a slight mistake, though not quite as you described. In order to fix the vandalism by JFBurton I initally moved the page from Tim Burton to Jeff Olson. However after moving it there I realised there were numerous other articles that previously had Jeff Olson red wikilinks, as they referred to the actor. As the actor seems to be more well known I (again) moved the singer's page, and created a stub for the actor instead of a redirect. I was planning to expand the actor stub later. One Night In Hackney 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just that one of the links to Jeff Olson was a link for a requested article, so to avoid all the wikilinks from the film pages pointing to completely the wrong person I thought it would be best to create at least a stub. Thanks One Night In Hackney 23:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest as the best course of action regarding all the articles that now incorrectly link to Jeff Olson? If a page for the actor is created (obviously as Jeff Olson (actor) this time) it's not going to be much more than the previous stub with a filmography added. Do you think it's best just to change the incorrect links to red wikilinks to Jeff Olson (actor)? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 11:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just change them to red wikilinks. I'm not convinced he's notable enough for an article (although someone clearly is), the only reason I created the stub was to stop all the articles linking to the wrong Jeff Olson. Thanks for the help. One Night In Hackney 11:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion and rationality
Thanks for your comment. I am still pondering whether 'rational' or 'critical' is the best. Rational argument proceeds by valid argument from certain assumptions. These assumptions may not be questioned. A critical approach, by contrast, tends to question every assumption, even the most obvious ones. Now consider this argument which Aquinas places right at the beginning of the Summa. part 1 Q1 A8 ad 2. Aquinas considers the objection that argument from authority is the weakest. He replies: argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, but argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest. And there's no argument against that. Any argument based on the authority of divine revelation (by definition an infallible source) is the strongest possible argument we could have. Given the assumption that the Catholic religion is based on divine revelation, the argument is perfectly logical, perhaps even rational. But it is not critical. The obvious flaw is that initial assumption. How do we know it's divine revelation? I suppose the reply would be: it's written in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God. Dbuckner 08:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I like the idea of Basic limiting principles. Dbuckner 11:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest message
I'm a bit confused about what the 'latest message' was! Your previous reply seemed consistent with it, and I assumed it was a response. Generally, my point was that the word 'critical' is essential to characterising philosophy. There is no other discipline where you are allowed to, nay encouraged, to challenge anything you like. The 'rationality' comes in when students are encouraged to structure their criticism, identify any assumptions they are making, take things point by point, avoid the logical fallacies that they will have been taught about in their first year, and so on.

I left Bristol in 1987. Now in London, doing something quite different. Actually, that remark immediately tells me you aren't the person I thought you actually were (the person in question is exactly your age, and my age, lectures philosophy at Oxford, and is also interested in African philosophy. But that person knows I live in London.  Unless you are laying a false trail, of course!  Dbuckner 11:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Presence (band)
I made some changes to the article. Even though it was largely verifiable, I went ahead and deleted all of that stuff about Lol's alcoholism and his lack of contributions during those last few years he was involved with The Cure because it is already mentioned in his article (see Lol Tolhurst) and it just seemed kind of redundant to include it on this page as well. As for his involvement with The Cure those first couple of years, and that of Gary Biddles, I decided to put that in the trivia section. Shaneymike 16:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Shaneymike 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Autechre
In the Autechre page, you've reverted my edits twice. How else do you propose I cite my work that we can both agree on? Alex 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The links are not in the public domain, even if they are online. You continue to modify my work in ways I am not comfortable and refuse to explain your behavior. Please do not link to my work until you provide a reasonable explanation, thanks. Alex 18:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: it's disruptive editing (and extreme bad manners, though I realise that means little to you) to call good-faith edits "vandalism". Note also that my comments will remain in your page history, and that anyone is able to look at them. I suppose that if you're not embarrassed by your behaviour so far, that's unlikely to worry you either, of course.

You never explained the reason for making changes to the article, which is itself disruptive and rude. I reverted your talk page edits because they were, indeed, wandering from repeated bad-faith vandalism to personal attacks (accusing me of adding "vanity" content, when the material is very clearly connected to the methodry as discussed in the article, as well as in the article's discussion section). I have to admit I am disappointed that administrator-level users are given this level of power to be abusive. Consider this on the record, as well. Alex 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As this User removes my explanations and warnings from his page calling it vandalism, there's little point replying here. For those who are interested, my initial explanation, and subsequent comments, can be seen here. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramoji Rao
Just to update you that i reverted to a old version of Ramoji Rao, the section was deleted by foul people. There have been so many deletions in the past and i requested for page protection as well. hope you understands.

Licensing for publicity photos
What type of licensing should I select when uploading publicity photos? Shaneymike 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bummer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaneymike (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Ludvikus
Mel, since it concerns you, I wish to draw your attention to Ludvikus' comments on my talk page, and to my reply. Banno 10:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

All lower case names/hide issue
Hello, seeing that the entry at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters) has not rendered any additional input, should we put in for a third opinion elsewhere or consider that recently added New York Times article on the musician's death sufficient enough a source? Regards - Cyrus XIII 10:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to my past behavior
I just wanted to say again that I'm sorry. I was under a lot of stress at work. Shaneymike 15:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But you have to admire
the guy's persistence. Follow his user contributions. They go round the clock almost at five minute intervals with a break at 2 o'clock in the morning New York time (he lives there) and resume five or six hours later. So he does nothing else. I have to admire such dogged persistence. In fact the two human qualities I most admire are (1) that kind of persistence (2) faultless, eloquent and persuasive reasoning. A sad fact these are so rarely combined.

I am hoping this may be a test case for WP itself. I don't like credentials - far more of the problem is poor and sloppy writing, so give me a good copy editor any day. I had a brief spell at Citizendium but I see what you mean about LS. What is missing is that 'citizenship points' don't count. If you have been a long time here, you have shown an ability to work with other editors, despite occasional run ins, and most other old timers are like that, in my experience. Some of them are a bit mad, but you know how to deal with them. But you have to face a constant barrage from newcomers who have a complete lack of housetraining. There is no way of showing these people the door quickly. Anyway, must go, as I'm violating the policy of leaving only messages on talk pages. You are a wonderful person, don't let it get you down, as I suspect it is. Best Dbuckner 09:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This contains some perceptive and insightful comments. How, in fact, do we know he is not a professor at Columbia university?
 * I am disappointed, though, that he thinks you have undermined his credibility. Dbuckner 12:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words
Hi, Mel. Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. It's good to be back. By the way, during my absence, I occasionally looked in, and I saw some message you had put on someone's talk page (can't find it now, and can't remember whose page it was) about -ize and -ise spellings. I've noticed before that you use -ise, and it always surprises me &mdash; coming from an Oxford man. I have to confess it's partly snobbishness that gives me such a strong preference for -ize. Every time I write "realize" or "recognize", I can secretly think how superior I am with my Z, having memorized Fowler's twenty-three exceptions, to those poor lesser mortals who use S and can only memorize "capsize"!

Anyway, I should say that I am glad to see you back as well. You disappeared for some time before Christmas, and I noticed you were gone. Remember, you were the one who welcomed me to Wikipedia, who explained how to upload an image, and who told me how to start an article when the page I wanted to "create" already existed as a redirect to another page. So I've always considered you to be an essential part of Wikipedia. Musical Linguist 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: al-Kindi spelling
Hi there,

Just wanted to say thanks for all your help on al-Kindi and apologize about the spelling issue that has come up. I understand where you are coming from on the transliteration, and indeed this would have been my original approach (as the academic sources I read also use that transliteration), however I was instructed by a number of editors not to use transliteration and - because I am relatively new here - followed their recommendation.

Once again, apologies for the confusion, I was unaware of the debate re: transliteration. Hope this won't get in the way of us working together :-)

Regards, Alexander.Hainy 23:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding. Yes, it shouldn't be difficult to reverse the transliteration. I'd be most appreciative if you could point me towards the relevant pages for the debate on this matter. How does this effect the actual title of articles? al-Kindi was recently moved because of the "i" being transliterated to produce a long-vowel.

Alexander.Hainy 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the article talk page. ← A NAS ''' Talk? 12:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Anal Stretching talk page
Hi Mel Etitis

Please explain why you deleted the talk page of Anal Stretching? Not only did I leave a comment requesting that admins not delete it without consultation, but it was also a legitimate attempt to rewrite the article in compliance with half a dozen users as follows (see the box below)?

Please can you help get me the source of the deleted page -- perhaps posting it as a usersubpage of mine?

Your ammicable, civil, and co-operative response is greatly appreciated.

Regards

Rfwoolf 15:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, firstly, thank-you for your amicable response.


 * Secondly, in reply to your question about why I deleted the note on my talk page that said that the article had been placed in my userspace -- I didn't delete it, there's a link to my archive here User_talk:Rfwoolf/Archive_1 (and there was a subtle link to my archive on my userpage, and having read WP:ARCHIVE, I can't see any harm.


 * The reason I archived it was because I didn't want to attract too much attention to it in case it gets G4d again or something. In this place you never know. Rfwoolf 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Siokan
Hi, Mel Etitis. I lost my idea already, having reverted the edits by this user. But yesterday the same happen, this time is a anon user, check AFC Asian Cup, i suspect is from the same user. I'm didn't revert back, until you can solve the problem. And have some advice to me. I totally lost. Thank you. --Aleen f 1  07:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I lost my idea how to improve my problem, even revert is easy for me. OK, all problem seem solve. Thank you. But suspect is not over for IP 210.253.171.2, is easy to said no him by Siokan, but WHY he is THANKS to this anon user in each talk page? That is make more suspect only. Anyway, if the problem solve, that is fine, a lot of thanks for advice. --Aleen f 1  16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is not over yet, he make racial abuse and personal attack today via Wikipedia e-mail to me. I'm so concern about this. --Aleen f 1  09:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not exactly sure how to register a complaint about another user and since you've dealt with this particular user recently, I'm coming to you. So here's what happened: So it seems he's taking the PUI dispute personally and vandalizing in retaliation, and the user appears to have a history of edit wars and personal attacks. What is the policy in situations like this? And what, if anything, should I do? Ytny 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I marked one of the images uploaded by User:Siokan as a possibly unfree image, and listed it under Possibly unfree images.
 * 2) Siokan removed the warning tag twice and left a message in my user talk space, after which I advised him of the 3 revert rue.
 * 3) His next three edits were all reverts of my recent edits:,  and.


 * Thanks for your response. I saw the good bye message too, and if Siokan's like most other troublesome users, I'm guessing he got bored and will stay away. Ytny 22:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What a joke
I'm not 210.253.171.2. Check my IP address and undo your edits.

Siokan 22 January 2007

My strong complaints about Aleenf1's edits
 * Removing the “Performance by nation” part.

It shows how a country is dominating the tounrmaent and it's very informative.


 * Changing the result box.

Thanks to Aleenf1, the pages look too wide and it's annoying.

Compare my edits and Aleenf1's

Aleenf1's edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AFC_U-17_Championship&oldid=102228127

My edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AFC_U-17_Championship&oldid=102199209 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siokan (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 January 2007

Painful I know
But you ought to be joining in the philosophy workshop (or at least saying why you won't be joining). Here. Best. Dbuckner 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You are also being used
Dear Mel (if I may be so familiar), Please have a look at the following. Jasper23 discovered he couldn't use WillBeBack anymore, so now he is trying to use and deceive you. Please review the following transcript. Thank you. You Are Being Used 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

==You are being used== Hi. Take a look at Jasper23's recent edits to Cracker (pejorative). His recent reverts are not about preventing vandalism, but about furthering his own agenda. Whatever that is. He arbitrarily reverts well sourced material just because it doesn't suit his tastes. He uses you to silence those who disagree with him, or even dare to challenge him, no matter how well documented or respectful they might be. In the case of "Cracker Party" he is trying to give the impression it was a bonafide political party in its own right, rather than a political machine like Tammany Hall. I don't know what he is up to elsewhere. Thought you should be informed. Sacrificial Ram 14:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please look at today's edit to Cracker (pejorative) and Jasper23's reaction to it. (I'm sure he will delete it.) It is a bonafide reference from a transcription of a Malcolm X speech. Absolutely 100% legit. Thanks. Sacrificial Ram 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Newest Scran/Cant stand ya sock puppetJasper23 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Told you so. Jasper23's behavior and edit abuses are not in the best interest of Wikipedia. If I am to be punished - he should be too. Sacrificial Ram 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You do realize the banned user was setting a trap with his edits? Also, that the original poster youarebeingused is yet another sock puppet. Please review all of his different incarnations and user histories. Please see my comment at the bottom of your page and lets discuss this. Thanks. Jasper23 05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Summaries
Sorry, RTFA means "Read the Article" (no rudeness intended). If you'd clicked on the link you'd've answered your own question... ed g2s &bull; talk 23:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet
Please, lets discuss putting a banned users edits back into the article before you hit the revert key. I am under the impression that banned users are not allowed to edit wikipedia, no matter what type of contribution they try to make. One positive edit and the rest were attacks against me. This user has literally dozens of blocked accounts. I dont see why you would immediately take the sock puppets side and revert my revert. If you check the page history about half of the edits on the first page are by the socks of this one editor. Please discuss this with me before reverting the page again. I find this to be one of the most unfair and abrupt decisions that I have encountered on wikipedia. Respectfully. Jasper23 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So thanks for adding the material back to the article without discussing it with me first. Wow. Yeah, sock puppet. Jasper23 16:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because you are an admin doesn't mean that you shouldn't treat fellow editors with a little respect. Jasper23 16:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus
Mel, I have been asked on my talk page to commence an wp:rfc on user:Ludvikus. However, I think that there is enough evidence here now to implement a community ban for Disruptive editing. Specifically, mainly and briefly:
 * His editing of Philosophy is tendentious. The talk page amply demonstrates that there is little support for his views. Furthermore his his affectation of martyrdom is tedious.
 * He is campaigning to drive away productive contributors. His actions on Philosophy make that page unlikely to attract new editors. His insults on user talk:Peter J King clearly had a strong influence on his removing himself from the Wikipedia. His comments about you are another example, including the disruptive posts for which I blocked him; indeed, his obnoxious approach to other editors in general, and the sheer volume of tendentious material he posts, "operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors".

I have asked user:FT2 to comment. I would also value your opinion as an admin.

Thanks, Banno 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This one is quite good, however, and the community view is that this is a kind of free entertainment. However, some of us would now like to get on with some editing.  Dbuckner 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SOUP. Jkelly 20:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

KD's trench humour
Dear Mel. Please don't get at KD. He is a superlative editor. He has stood his ground in all of this – the comment you refer to was a bit of trench humour in the midst of a difficult bombardment. I fully support the stand you are taking, and see my comments on the talk page. There is a fundamental issue at stake, as to whether a difficult editor is the problem, or whether the problem is all of us not being tree-huggy to each other, or being naughty schoolboys. Some of the administrators (not you, not Banno) are taking the latter position, and I am having nothing to do with it until the problem is recognised for what it is. Dbuckner 11:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps inappropriate
Sorry if the comment bugged you. I am afraid I arrived at the main Philosophy article after going through combat - rather than editing - at the Analytic/Continental article, which in the end was rightly deleted - only to find the main editor of that article (Lucas/Lucaas) reproducing the deleted material in the Philosophy article, aided and abetted by another editor whose contributions are entirely unsuitable (to the point, as I inappropriately commented, of risibility).

As for being a superlative editor, thanks Ed, but I haven't really had the chance. The page can't currently be edited because of the tireless resistance of L and L. I think the situation does need to be handled formally at a higher level - I am not as well-versed in Wikipedia administration and what's required as I am sure you are. But I will gladly support measures to get the article back in the hands of people who can edit it properly.

All the best. KD Tries Again 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD


 * Voluable, yes. And today voluably talking to himself.  KD Tries Again 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Warning
I called his edits "duplicitous". If you have a problem with my wording, try to ban me. Your complaint is frivolous. Guess you will file another complaint about me using he word "frivolous" as well? SSS108 talk-email 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know the definition of "duplicitous" and I think the edits on the Priddy page are perfect examples of duplicitious behavior. Neither you (nor anyone else) can source any of the information about Robert Priddy to reliable or reputable references. Almost the entire page must be taken on the word of Priddy because it cannot be sourced anywhere else. Despite this fact, you defend the inclusion of information from non-reliable sources. Flaunting adherence to Wikipedia policy and at the same time not abiding by it is duplicitous behavior, in my opinion. I will not be bullied by you. If you think I have made such an egregious and unfounded accusation, why don't you try to get me banned for it? SSS108 talk-email 18:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Rafare
Hi there,

I saw you comment on the “discussion page” of the article “time”. After that, I took the liberty to access your Wikipedia personal page. And now, I am living you a note. Please, accept my apologies for troubling you with off topics discussion.

Well, I live in São Paulo, Brazil, I have 36 years, with a degree in Economic, MBA and now I am attending to Law, and I expect to get my degree in 4 years from now. After almost 15 years working in the financial markets and as well as entrepreneur I decided to focus on the academia.

This year, after a long selection process, I am going to start, in March, a master/doctor in Philosophy of Law. In order to get the doctor degree, I have to first finish the credits to obtain the master one. It might sound odd someone still looking forward to obtain the degree in Law and, on the same time, getting the master/doctor but it can get worst. If everything works as planned, I will get master/doctor before.

The title of my dissertation, which has already been approved, is: “Time, Rationality and Ignorance: The contradictions that might occur between market economy and positive law.”

After this long (and probably unnecessary) introduction, I would like to ask your help, if possible. It might seem forward, but please accept my apologies.

I have been digging around, looking for textbooks, articles, PhD dissertations about “Time, Rationality and Ignorance” but I was only able to find few materials covering these 3 aspects with regard to Law and Economics and they often focused on metaphysical questions rather then applied ones.

So, I am wondering, knowing in advance that you teach where I consider being the birthplace for Law and Economics, if you have knowledge of any work that could be of interested to my work in progress.

I am also new to Wikipedia so, I still need to learn how to get in touch with other members. Once there is no visible e-mail address on your page and I found a link to your “Talk Page” and decided to leave you a message.

My e-mail is: [e-mail address removed to protect user]

Best regards,

Guilherme G. Rafare —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grafare (talk • contribs) 15:14, 25 January 2007

Jan. 25 2007
You'd probably be best to block this weiner for a bit longer, they're back with the vandalism. :) User: 205.235.40.150 Nageeb 18:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Soup
Brilliant, Mel - my whole family are still laughing! Banno
 * I doubt he'll get the point - "In the context of our current Editor's War, and the way it's signed above, it's either Vandalism, or the man with the Prozac break is saying that my edits are all Suop. So "Don't be a dick" with me …" cont. p. 94. Dbuckner 09:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Metaphilosophical naturalism
Meanwhile, if I may ask for some philosophical advice. Ben Nelson wanted to keep, in the introduction to Philosophy, the point that "still others argue that philosophy is continuous with the best practices in every intellectual field." My problem was that I (& others) do not understand the idea "continuous with the best practices". I did some delving around and discovered 'Metaphilosophical naturalism', which is characterised by in the following different ways

•	There is no 'first philosophy' – there are no foundational truths on which all other truths, including the truths of science, depend. •	There is no distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions, thus no difference between the propositions of philosophy and the propositions of science. •	Philosophy is not sui generis. •	There are no specifically philosophical propositions •	Philosophy is a branch of or 'continuous with' natural science

Find this all v. confusing. 'Philosophy is a branch of natural science' sort of makes sense, so long as you ignore the more difficult question of what 'natural science' is (is the study of angels natural science?). I also roughly grasp the first, as being against the Aristotelian idea of reasons which are fundamental to everything, whose investigation falls to the metaphysician.

The stuff in between I don't follow. The second one is hard if you have never read Quine's arguments on this (I confess). I know it is famous, but what is the reference? The third is vague, because 'sui generis' is vague, moreover unsuited to the general audience at which Wikipedia aimed at. The fourth (no specifically philosophical proposition) is very obscure, because if philosophy really is a branch of the sciences, then there are specifically philosophical propositions (for the same reason that nuclear phyics is a branch of physics, ergo there are specifically nuclear physics-ish propositions).

There was a reasonably good paper here. Dbuckner 09:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A copy of Quine's Two Dogmas available on-line. Banno 10:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Banno. I will take a look.  Dbuckner 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel, thank you for the comments on the talk page. I had almost forgotten what clarity sounded like. Nothing to add. Dbuckner 10:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Email
I just emailed you - important, if you could pick it up, thanks. Dbuckner 10:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks
The prferred means of linking is Assyrians, not Assyrians (see Piped link#Use). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Surena"


 * Thanks for the info. Surena 11:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/NAME
I saw your message at User talk:المستهلك and would like you to consider changing your opinion to "Allow" unless the editor refuses to use a transliteration in their sig. I would normally agree with your approach to the situation, but in this case the RfC is being brought against an editor who has not been active for a month. I do not expect they will have any idea about the situation until it is over.--BirgitteSB 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea to email them. I didn't think to check if email was enabled. Thanks!--BirgitteSB 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Analytic/continental
I like the idea of Husserl as a "decent" Anglo-American! Seriously, I would point to a subtantive content disagreement rather than style (he is a terribly dry, boring, reptitive writer - but he doesn't have the grand ludic style of The Typical Continental). He was working at the same problems in Phil of Maths as Frege; attempted to account for the concept of number in psychological terms; and was slammed by Frege for doing so. Rather than follow Frege down the path of logico-linguistic analysis, he developed phenomenology primarily to show that he could rely on intuition without falling into psychologism. Nevertheless, he continued to discuss - at huge length - meaning, sense,reference. And this has meant that analytical philosophers like Follesdal, Woodruff Smith, etc have been able to deal with Husserl. Dummett's slim volume of lectures on Origins of Analytic Phil is good on this. KD Tries Again 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD


 * Not here to convert you, of course. I trained in a mainly analytic department, and do appreciate those standards.  And I think continental philosophy benefits from being interpreted by the light of those standards.  But one can no more jump into Heidegger or Derrida and hope to swim right away, than a beginner could pick up a volume of Carnap or Quine and feel at home.  KD Tries Again 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Opus Dei
I did not change the protection level on Opus Dei at all (see log). I changed the template on the page to the new  template that I've been messing around with, indicating that automatic protection expiration has been enabled. Still working on the wording on it though. — xaosflux  Talk  15:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration
Hello. I found out you started the article about the confucianist Toju Nakae (I added a picture to it some time ago), and that you are interested in philosophy. So I just wanted to tell you there is also an article about Banzan Kumazawa, just in case you want to check it out. Greetings, Dalobuca 18:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ko San

 * Obviously the opinion of others does not matter to you. That's a strange way to contribute to wikipedia. Hektor 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cyprus arms.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cyprus arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)