User talk:Mtevfrog

Edit war
Yo Mtevfrog, you seem to be engaged in an edit war on this article; it's not constructive and will only result in more reverts leading to blocks for all concerned. I've asked the other editor to explain his proposed changes on the talkpage, and for the article to be protected while we achieve consensus on how to proceed. Regards, Skomorokh  19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Skomorokh on the Heidegger article
Thanks for the comment on my talk page in relation to the article on Martin Heidegger.

Before I get to that, however, I would first like to comment on your renaming of Heidegger (Gesamtausgabe) as simply Gesamtausgabe. Gesamtausgabe, of course, just means "Collected works," and is a title given in German to the collected works of numerous authors. Perhaps you think that Heidegger's Gesamtausgabe is so well known under that name that it does not need further qualification, but personally I think the qualification is necessary. Another possible title option would be Heidegger Gesamtausgabe or Martin Heidegger Gesamtausgabe. I will leave that in your court.

As for the question of the Heidegger article itself, I feel it necessary to point out a couple of things by way of introduction. One is that I am a scholar with a doctorate in that specific field. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that what I want to add to the article is unquestionable, but on the other hand I do believe it is a relevant fact, as I will explain shortly. Another thing I would like to mention is that I have over 5000 mainspace edits, including over 500 edits to the Heidegger article, over a period of more than two years. In that time I have had very few problems on Wikipedia involving interactions with other editors. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that this means I am necessarily right in the current dispute, but on the other hand I do believe it is a relevant fact, as I will explain shortly.

The first edit I made to the Heidegger article was on November 13, 2006, as can be seen here. A casual glance at the state of the article at that time shows it to be quite poor, and the vast majority of the improvements to the article made since then have been by me (if I do say so myself). A detailed look at the history will show this. The article had, until recently, reached a state where, although it still had some problems, it was a respectable article which in fact possessed some genuine virtues as an encyclopedia article on this philosopher.

The reason for the parlous state of the article two years ago is the same as the reason for the current dispute. Heidegger is a very important philosopher who also has a very big problem: his involvement with National Socialism. As is well known, this has been the source of great contention between philosophers ever since. It also means that the Wikipedia article on this philosopher attracts editors who know of this involvement, but do not actually possess any great knowledge, let alone understanding, of his philosophy. Such editors are frequently and unsurprisingly ill-disposed toward Heidegger, and often feel that the best thing they can do is to add more material which shows Heidegger in a poor light. Feeling this way, and lacking knowledge or understanding of the work, they frequently make unconstructive edits which they genuinely believe are important additions to the article.

The other problem with an article such as the Heidegger article is that there are very few experts in the field who are prepared to bother themselves with editing a Wikipedia article on the topic. There are several reasons for this, and it is unfortunate that such is the situation, but it is most certainly the case that, other than myself, there are very few, if any, contributors to this article who possess any expertise on this philosopher's work. This means that defending the article against corruption from largely well-meaning but wrongheaded contributors has been a battle which has been fought nearly (but not entirely) singlehandedly.

This is usually a bearable situation, because most of those with a bias against the philosopher soon lose interest in inserting their viewpoints into it. What makes the situation very difficult is when there is an editor who wishes to do so and is also persistent, and is also clever enough to avoid some of the more obvious mistakes which might undermine their influence on Wikipedia. User Jonathansamuel is such an editor: he has calmly, but very persistently, added more and more destructive content to the article. It is very difficult for one editor to prevent these changes from being made. For example, a Wikipedian might point to the importance of talking things out on the talk page, etc., but in fact there are only two participants in this struggle, and it is quite clear that this user, while he does respond to specific points, is very obviously motivated by his antipathy toward the subject, and is quite determined to find ways of undermining the article. Pointing out the subtle ways in which this is done is not necessary here.

I do not write this as someone infatuated with Heidegger: quite to the contrary. Nor do I think Heidegger's involvement is minor: it is an extremely important, but extremely complex, issue in philosophy and beyond philosophy. But I certainly do believe that Heidegger is an important philosopher, and that the complexity of his work and his Nazi entanglement mean that it is important for Wikipedia to have a scholarly and encyclopedic article on this subject. I have succeeded for a period of two years in raising the standard of the article and maintaining it there. But this one editor has already succeeded in significantly changing the article in a negative way. My fear is that the Wikipedia ethic of talking things through, compromises, etc., (an ethic I approve and agree with) will in fact play into the hands of this point-of-view-pushing editor. It will do so because there are simply no editors who are both capable of seeing what this editor is doing, and willing to resist it. That there are no such editors is due to the reasons I have pointed to above.

If you are able to assist with this situation, naturally I would be very grateful. If not, I do understand, but I also fear that this article will certainly succumb to an inevitable decline, which I will be more or less powerless to prevent. I am not inclined to enter into infinite negotiations with a POV-pushing editor whose agenda I quite clearly see, and who I judge to be uninterested in creating a genuinely encyclopedic article on this topic. The reasons I do not wish to do this are simply that the reward is outweighed by the cost: in other words, and despite working on this article for over two years, the demands of such a situation are simply not worth the effort. What is required to fix this situation is for committed and discerning Wikipedians to simply refuse to allow this subtle but destructive POV-pushing.

Sorry to bother you with such a long response, but I hope it at leasts enlightens you to the way in which I perceive what is going on here. Thanks. Mtevfrog (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding Gesamtausgabe, disambiguation in titles is frowned upon unless there are other articles that could be confused with the one in question. As long as it is made perfectly clear in the opening line that it is Heidegger's collected works and not those of another that is being examined, there shouldn't be a problem. WP:NCDAB is the relevant guideline. I'll reply to the issues witht he Heidegger article shortly. Regards, Skomorokh  16:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the responses by the user in question on the Heidegger talk page vindicate what I have said: arguments based on book titles, on counting up chapters, and on googling. The user lacks knowledge of the subject and lacks insight, but in spite of this remains insistent on imposing their changes. Furthermore, the user claims not to be interested in making changes to the sections which describe Heidegger's philosophy, yet already has done so, in ways which are intended subtly to cast doubt on the work. In other words, the comments by this user not only demonstrate their lack of competence on the topic, but also are not wholly honest about what they have done thus far, nor about their future intentions. It is this kind of thing, which to me gives the clear appearance of game-playing, which makes the situation difficult to deal with. Unless other users are able to perceive what is going on and are willing to make clear that such behaviour will not be tolerated, it is virtually impossible for me to singlehandedly prevent corruption of the article. Mtevfrog (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I haven't got the time to devote to this; it does look as if your concerns are justified. I'll try ask around to see if any suitably informed editors are willing to take a look at the dispute. Regards, Skomorokh  04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know Skomorokh. User Jonathansamuel is now pointing to an interaction I had with user Shentino as further evidence of my problematic behaviour. In fact, I reverted one edit by Shentino a total of once. User Shentino stated the belief that I may be an IP editor with whom he had had earlier interactions. This belief was false. Furthermore, I continue to believe the reversion was correct. In any case, it still seems clear that user Jonathansamuel is sticking to his guns, and his rights as an editor of Wikipedia. I continue to believe that the article in question and Wikipedia is the worse for it, but I lack confidence that much can be done about it at the moment. Thanks again, and good luck finding editors prepared to intervene positively on this matter. Mtevfrog (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside (more or less) Opinion on Heidegger
Hello. I have tried to respond to your call for help from editors who have some understanding of Heidegger. You may not entirely agree with my view, but I wanted to assure you that I am strongly in favor of a balanced article which emphasizes Heidegger's contribution to philosophy. I think a simple, unequivocal indication of his support for Hitler is justified in the biographical section; one can then defend all the more rigorously the need to keep detailed discussion of this hugely complicated issue in the appropriate section.

If I've misunderstood the situation, and the article has been attacked or compromised in other ways, please let me know. I do appreciate the effort you've made here, and understand from personal experience how difficult it is to hold the fort against (I assume) well-meaning administrators who don't actually know what the issues are.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Thanks for your intervention, KD Tries Again. Mtevfrog (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Friendly request: Sociology reviewer
Hi there. I'm picking on you because you look knowledgeable. Basically, the sociology article has been greatly improved over the past few months and we are looking for reviewers! It isn't of featured status, but I certainly think it deserves higher than its current B rating, ie. GA status. Please be a reviewer, or lend further advice! --Tomsega (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Heidegger
In response to your edit summary, it was "Nazism" before a group of single-purpose accounts attempted to insert some arguably pro-Nazi material into and to remove some anti-Nazi material from the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR Warning
You have continued to edit war overnight and you are now clearly in breach of WP:3rr. I have counted four reversions by you to the same content within a 24 hour period. Jonathansamuel (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Heidegger lead
I have proposed a formulated addition on Heidegger's article lead. Can you look at it? You have previously said my initial addition was no improvement. What, in your view, should be done to the lead? Personally I think it did not list any of his ideas, therefore it is not sufficiently useful as a lead. If you are a reader of Heidegger's original texts, do you think my addition to the lead -- based on my understanding of Heidegger from Leo Strauss' commentaries, is flatly wrong? And if it is, what is the correct view? Regards. Wandering Courier (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

B. Stiegler
Hello. Do you really think Barbara Stiegler’s books and life are relevant in the article about her father, for instance here or in the bilbiography ? I suggest they be removed. Best, -- Hérisson de Cloche   10:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Echographies of Television


The article Echographies of Television has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * As tagged since 2011, this book does not seem to fit WP notability criteria.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hérisson de Cloche  14:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Irving Singer article
Hi Mtevfrog, I just want to notify you that I restored the bibliography in the Irving Singer article. It seems important to me that at least a partial bibliography is included in the actual article. I have also started a new article on Singer's 2009 book: Philosophy of Love: A Partial Summing-Up. Anthrophilos (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Abbas Kiarostami
About this edit, the section is a transcription of a Youtube video and original research, that's why I removed it. By the way I agree that it's interesting.Farhikht (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And if you take a look at the history of the article you will see that this section has been removed by multiple users.Farhikht (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Terrence Malick
Hi, Mtevfrog. And a happy holiday this Christmas Eve. I've started a discussion at Talk:Terrence Malick since no reason was actually given for your edit other than WP:ILIKEIT. The talk-page discussion gives reasons based on the dictionary definition of "bibliography" and how Wikipedia has separate " --Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609595778 your edit] to Bernard Stiegler 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ), Critical Terms for Media Studies (Chicago &amp; London: University of Chicago Press): 66–87.
 * *Stephen Barker, http://www.transformationsjournal.org/journal/issue_17/article_01.shtml Transformation as an

Another edit war?
Hi, Mtevfrog:

You reverted the change on the article Bernard Stiegler. That wasn't very intelligent. Try clicking on the ISBN that you prefer--it results in an error message "The given ISBN does not appear to be valid; check for errors copying from the original source".

Why would you prefer an invalid ISBN in the article? Moreover, even if your "preferred" ISBN were valid, it's an ISBN-10; they have been superceded by ISBN13s. Why would you prefer an outdated ISBN-10?

I have reverted your edit because it is WRONG. The ISBN that I provided is valid and ISBN-13. Leave it alone, please.

Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)