User talk:Practical321

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Hgilbert (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Reincarnation
Your edits look fine - except that they have no citations to support them. You'll find that it is easier, when not dealing with matters of common knowledge, to include supporting citations; then there is less likelihood that others will simply flatly contradict (or revert) you!

Hoping you continue to edit on this and other subjects: Hgilbert (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

External links and marking edits minor
Would you please read WP:EL - your website is a personal website and fails the criteria there. You are also marking edits as minor which don't appear to follow the criteria mentioned in the 'what's this' beside the tick box. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC) At Philo you marked a major addition of text as minor and some minor editing - you didn't mark! Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Doug, when I make major edits, my habit is to mark them. Sometimes I add text, then go back and edit a typo or two; in that case, the second edit is marked "minor."

I am a writer, and self-publish. My articles are of the same quality as those on a non-self-published website. I rarely, if ever, *cite* my own articles, but if they seem genuinely helpful to readers of a Wikipedia article, I don't see why they shouldn't be included in the External Links section. I believe this is something that should be decided on a case-by-case basis, since ultimately what matters is not whether a link is to a "personal" website (whatever that means), but the quality, value and relevance of the material linked. Practical321 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of "minor edits" and a note on linkspam
I wanted to add my voice here, too. After Doug's request, I'm not sure why you're continuing to add links to John Uebersax's congressional site and marking them as minor, but I'd invite you to review WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Khazar2 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

1. My website is not a "Congressional" website. That is only one page of a very elaborate website that deals with education, medical statistics, psychology, religion, and society.

2. Why was my material about the Harvard Classics deleted from Great Books just now? That sentence contained an internal Wikipedia link to the Harvard Classics, so any concerns about my "personal" website are irrelevant. My concern here is that someone is using the Great Books entry in Wikipedia as a long advertisement for the commercial product distributed by the Encyclopedia Britannica, "The Great Books of Western Civilization." The Harvard Classics are a Great Books list that is entirely in the public domain - hence of considerable interest to potential readers. It would be unconscionable not to make readers of the article aware of it.

3. For the same reason, I believe it is decidedly in the interests of Wikipedia users to know that Thomas Jefferson compiled Great Books lists. Indeed, if you will take the time to look at the link, you'll see that Jefferson's list is more than viable today. Although the page I cite is on my own website, the page cites original sources, (including Jefferson's letters). If you wish, I will simply add the primary citations to the Wikipedia article.

4. As far as what is a 'minor edit', I think you're making a mountain over a molehill.

In any case, nothing I do is or can even be remotely considered "spam"! Practical321 (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)!


 * Thanks for your lengthy response. Your contributions are of course appreciated, but I'd ask that you review Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and original research. Adding links to your personal website is both not a reliable source per Wikipedia policy, and has the obvious appearance of self-promotion (i.e., linkspam). Surely more reliable sources can be found that make the same claims. Falsely flagging these insertions as "minor" causes them to not be noticed by many other editors, which is why Doug and I have asked you to read the text on the screen when you note something as "minor." Thanks for reading our policies, and we appreciate your future contributions. Khazar2 (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Like you, my interests are the advancement of knowledge, and public service.

As you may have noticed, I have re-inserted the sentence about Thomas Jefferson's book lists, now supplying formal references (thank you - I think this is much better, and recognize that I was in too much of a hurry last time); and have also restored the sentence about the Harvard Classics. I also replaced the link to "The Great Books Lists of Thomas Jefferson", which has been there for over a year. I appreciate that discretion and good judgment should be used before adding an external link, but in this case I believe (1) the information is unique; (2) it is valuable, and in any case a work of solid scholarship; and (3) it serves the public interests. It would seem rather silly to move the page to another website merely to avoid giving the appearance of self-promotion. I think readers are able to judge motives fairly well. Whether something is self-promoting or altruistic comes across in the content. Hopefully in this case the content demonstrates purity of intentions.

If you would kindly let me know if you have any concerns about these changes, I'd appreciate your letting me know. Otherwise I hope we can let the matter rest and move on to other things.Practical321 (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

me to move the article to someone else's website merely to j Please let me know if you disagree with any of these changes, and

Harvard Classics
1. Again, I don't know why you've made such a big deal about my 2010 campaign page. It isn't the index for my website. The entry to my website is: http://www.john-uebersax.com/index2.htm

2. The link I added is not redundant with the link it precedes. At archive.org there are multiple versions of every volume of the Harvard Classics library. Some of these are huge -- 100 mb or more. I've gone through the list and linked to the particular version of each volume that is of highest quality and reasonable size. If anyone wants to download pdf versions of the volumes (and hopefully they do!), then the links I supplied will save considerable time and effort.

3. I really do think you're laboring under some kind reaction to my *old* campaign website. Apparently you think I'm just trying to grab votes or publicity. That's not the case. It has nothing to do with my Wikipedia edits. Someone following the Great Books link is unlikely to ever see the campaign page. It's only one of perhaps 100 pages on the website. Practical321 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I've made a "big deal" as you've said--a big deal would have meant reporting you to an administrator--but it is inappropriate to add this per Wikipedia policy, so I removed it and explained my reasoning. If you've read the policies I've linked and consider this an error on my part (always possible), you're welcome to seek a third opinion from another editor. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your question at the village pump
Hi Practical321. I saw your question at the village pump. Hope this helps. 64.40.57.7 (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're concerned about edits to an article, you can ask for a third opinion at Third opinion
 * If your concern is something different, it's best to start out at the Dispute resolution noticeboard.

Divided Line Link
I contest the removal of the informative and innocuous link to the Uebersax article:

1. On what basis do you call it "unphilosophical?" It cites all the major papers, and pursues a well-known and extremely important theme (the distinction between dianoia and noesis). It follows in large part Annas and Murdoch. Evidently what you mean is that it doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Divided Line.

2. The interpretation of the Divided Line is controversial. It is not your place to limit points of view, as long as they are reasonable, plausible, logically presented, and adequately referenced.

3. What are your qualifications to call it unphilosophical? Are you a professional philosopher?

4. Most importantly: Where is rule that says that philosophers alone own Plato, and that the only valid way to read Plato is philosophically? Wouldn't Plato have considered himself a psychologist (scientist of the mind or soul) as well as a philosopher? Would you please tell me the name of a single professional philosopher who would say that psychology is not a proper perspective to take on Plato? (I know dozens of professional philosophers who would assert the contrary.)

5. In any case, the citation does nothing but give users more information. It supplies the entire text (including 7.533d-534b, which the Wikipedia article doesn't even mention), and a solid, professional-caliber bibliography. Any academic researcher interested in this topic would find this bibliography most helpful indeed -- especially given the hyperlinks.

I am putting the link back in, and charge you with the burden of proof to demonstrate to the community of users that it shouldn't be in there!

If you wish for this to go to the next level, by all means let us both waste our time taking it there! However if we do this, you should be prepared to find that nobody agrees with you, and that you make yourself look very small by such actions.


 * Hi ‎Practical321, I guess,
 * 1) Please sign your comments!
 * 2) This discussion belongs on the talk page Talk:Analogy_of_the_Divided_Line
 * BlueMist (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello BlueMist, These points have now been placed on the article Talk page per your suggestion (thank you). However, partly at issue is also that I believe you are being too free in altering other peoples' edits and additions. As though you know everything, and everyone else knows nothing. Why not try giving other people the benefit of the doubt? Practical321 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You might be right. However, I do try to stick to narrow topics that I have thoroughly researched. That's to be sure that I reflect established professional opinions, as against my own admitted biases. BlueMist (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)