User talk:Richiar/archive 1

movie buff: Legend of animals

How do I use this? Legend of animals 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't know how to use this. Legend of animals 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kit Carson communications Kit Carson
Thanks! The name-calling doesn't bother me too much, though I do think at some point editors have to let people know that they have to play by the Wikipedia rules--that the rules will be enforced.

I think a narrative of Kit Carson's role in popular culture would be ideal. I expect expansion would bring in a lot more positive portrayals of Carson--I don't think he's presented half the time in Bruce Cockburn's terms. But I do feel strongly that that kind of negative popular view of Carson needs to be included. Nareek 07:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that might be a mistake. I was using AWB and apparently I missed that it removed a valid category. Sorry again! --210 physicq  ( c ) 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, mistaken apology. *smacks myself in the head* It's because the mountain men category is already there. I was removing a redundant category. --210 physicq  ( c ) 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Found some information on the Inca Indians. Will send some information soon. --tracker

Urantia Book communications   The Urantia Book
I'm afraid I know very little about the Urantia Book, outside of what Martin Gardener wrote about it, which was enough to dissuade me from investigating much further. I was editing the page at the insistence of a friend, and will likely stay out of Urantia debates from now on. Thomas B 06:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Richiar, Welcome. Feel free to ask me on my talk page about wikipedia in general or the Urantia article when you have questions, I'm happy to help (as are many people on wikipedia you'll find). I saw your recent note on my talk page and also the question for Thomas B. I can answer that one about the universe being considered older in TUB versus current scientific theory. Gardner explored the topic in his book, so is the verifiable source for the article's wording, but online you can see paper 57 here for yourself. The estimated age of the universe from the currently dominate scientific model of the big bang theory has it at about 13.7 billion years give or take a few hundred million. Paper 57 describes "the enormous Andronover nebula" as starting to come about 875 billion years ago and that it was "well established" at 800 billion. Obviously a large discrepency with current science, and this is describing only a part of space. An implication is that other parts of "Orvonton" already were there and the physical universe is even older (off the top of my head I can't recall if a specific ages for the "superuniverses" like "Orvonton" are given). About how to structure the Urantia Book topic as it grows, which you were talking about on my user page, I'll respond to the similar message you left on the article's discussion page. I think there are a few ways to go. When you go through the discussion archives for the article, you'll probably come across my views, which haven't change much, but I'm open to hashing out other ideas. I share your view that it'll be good to aim for language that isn't bogged down in too much mumbojumbo but that side articles can explore more details for those who want to dive into them. Thanks. Wazronk 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Communications about WikiProject United States
The series on Politics and Government of the United States (PGUS) needs development; it connects through the article [Speaker of the United States House of Representatives], and kind of runs out. . ..

Thanks for your compliments
The Hinduism article is at Hinduism and creationism--Filll 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question on Coordinators
I've added some links to the initial discussions here; please let me know if you have any other questions. :-) Kirill Lokshin 04:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in VietNam
Thanks for that little message about the Chinese in VietNam, but the source you stated is American, and I find it hard to believe American sources.Canpark 10:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

 * "I wonder if it isn't a case of Bipolar Disorder"

That's almost exactly what I thought (well, to be precise my thought was: "the man's loopy" &mdash; but that's close enough, surely). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC) - Hey shrink, I think we need you!!!
 * Are you the one who did the abstraction of the views in philosophy? It's a wonderful contribution - although the heat among the disputants may have obscured some positions.
 * The first person who may need your assistance I believe may be the above person (I shall refrain from naming him directly, to be gentle); he began his interjection with a discription of his nauseating psychological state. I don't blame him - I don't expect others to have my endurance.
 * I am told he's a distinguished professor at Oxford - that makes me wonder why he elected to trivialize the role of Thales in the Western Intellectual tradition.
 * We could definitely use YOU - perhaps you can help us regarding Ego-trips. I believe Napoleon was an ego-tripper; but hey, he was Napoleon - don't worry, shrink, I don't believe I'm Napoleon.
 * Also, as a psychiatrist, you may be in a particularly good position to appreciate the role of the irrational in thought. I strongly oppose qualifying philosophy as rational inquiry - the word is useless, and a cover-up for private motives, as well as, often, class interests; that's much better recognized among Europeans, in postmodernism, Foucault, etc.
 * Anyway, thank you for jumping in - but you should sign your contribution - that Wikipedia policy!
 * Looking forward to hearing more from you, --Ludvikus 01:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Got your response. I see you're new toWikipedia. It' great, isn't it?
 * Regarding contributions to Philosphy, say your piece, even if it's not your field.
 * As you study more philosophy, you'll be able to contribute - don't worry, your're not confronted by many great scholars who'll overwhelm you with an abundance of learning.
 * What we have now is 3 or 4 editors with hurt egos (not me).
 * I'm an only child, therefore my ego's very strong.
 * I'm the guys who wins most arguments - so I'm called a "FUCKWIT" by User:Dbuckner!
 * I don't even know what it means - do you?
 * The ladies have always said I was a "good fuck" - but the above I never heard before. Is it English rather than an American expression?
 * Anyway - maybe you have some special way of handling several bruised egos!
 * Also, with an interest in psychology, you are in a privileged position to understand the role of the irrational. I do not say that Philosophy is an irrational inquiry. I just say that it does not tell anything.There are no irrational inquiries. So I'm trying to get the term dropped. But most of the others maintain that Philosophy is distinguished by Rationality. But the irony is that they have been so unsuccessful in winning them (about 3 individuals only) to their viewpoint, that they have resorted to irrational means - which also adds support to my point of view - that rationality is not what distinguishes philosophy.
 * Best regards, Ludvikus 07:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Principle of nonvacuous contrast

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia and the philosophy page, Richiar. You are most welcome to contribute. Most of the discussion is about how sources should be used, and doesn't require any philosophical training as such.

I think Ludvikus will probably 'win' the argument on that page, in a sense. Best Dbuckner 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To give you a flavour of the dispute. Ludvikus objects to the use of the word 'rational' to characterise the method of philosophy. I am compiling a list of quotations from secondary sources to show that most if not all authoritative sources consider rational, or critical, or logical approach to enquiry is a defining characteristic.

Ludvikus current objection is that he accepts that one source (Sir Anthony Quinton) uses the word 'rational'. So I am currently putting together a larger list. I suppose he will object that I am still being selective. But then Wikipedia policy is quite clear: the onus is on the objector to prove, by citation, that a 'significant minority' exists that disagrees with the majority view. With every kind wish Dbuckner 20:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Question - on Rationality in relation to Philosophy
Essentially, it is quite settled that defining "philosophy" is controversial.
 * Even Dbuckner I believe recognizes that.
 * Nevertheless, he insists on defining the subject by the qualification Rational enquiry, or by one of its closely related cognates.
 * I maintain that it should be dropped - because it really doesn't do anything - there's no such thing as irrational enquiry (this criticism comes from the Principle of Non-Vacuous Contrast). If there is no logical opposite possible, then the distinction is meaningless!
 * Also, I tried to point out that in this philosopher enquiry regarding the definition of philosophy, my opponents have resorted to irrational means (Dbuckner acknowledged it with an apology).
 * I could go on - but its better if you read the stuff in archives.
 * Best wishes, --Ludvikus 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Quiry on Fuckwit
Check this out.
 * Yours, etc., --Ludvikus 06:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for your comment. You say "What about the idea of having a side article on the different positions on the debate over the definition? Would that be helpful?" - no I don't think that would be helpful, as there aren't any different positions as far as authoritative sources are concerned. You need to read WP:OR which is a key Wikipedia policy. That says that the own views of Wikipedia editors are unimportant and irrelevant. All claims, as far as possible, should be cited. Any possibly contentious claims must be cited. Presumably, as a professional, you studied academic literature and so forth, and aware of peer review process and all that sort of thing? These policies are the Wikipedia equivalent. Dbuckner 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind message! Sometimes I doubt my sanity. Although you're probably not (given your profession) the person I should be saying that to! BestDbuckner 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dead horse link
To add this to your page or any Wikipedia page, just place the following code on the page:

After you do this, you should see the following image:

Good luck !--Filll 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I got it: thanks!! I transferred it to my main page-Richiar

Consensus
You are right that this should proceed by consensus. However, that is half of it. The other half is that there should be appropriate references for any claims in the article. Fortunately, Peter King has joined us, who is a 'proper' philosopher. I'm not sure that will make much impact. The problem with Wikipedia is that professional credentials officially count for nothing. Dbuckner 09:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS regarding the etymology of 'f---wit', it is indeed a neologism, but coined, I think, in the book Bridget Jones. That's certainly where I got it.  Dbuckner 10:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Fuckwit" goes back at least to the late 1980s, and I doubt that it was new then. Google throwa up some amusing surprises &mdash; especially the BBC pages (on which the word doesn't appear; some naughty backroom boy or girl is making surreptitious editorial comments...).  There's a film, a Wiktionary entry, and a set of definitions on Oxford Reference Online:

1. fuckwit n. a complete nitwit, an utter idiot. (From The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)

2. fuckwit n. a stupid or contemptible person (often used as a general term of abuse). (From The New Oxford American Dictionary in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)

3. fuckwit n. a complete nitwit, an utter idiot. (From The Australian Oxford Dictionary in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)

4. fuckwit noun a stupid or contemptible person. (From The Canadian Oxford Dictionary in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)

5. fuckwit noun vulgar slang a stupid or contemptible person (often used as a general term of abuse). (From The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised) in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)

I do hope that this helps. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
I arrived at the Philosophy page out of the ruins of the Anglophone/Analytic and Continental Philosophy discussion, which rightly ended in the deletion of the article. KD Tries Again 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD Jan 16 07

Please support
Please support my reversion (the Voluntary Slave one). This is the worst incident of its kind I have experienced since beginning here (and have been here since very early days). Frankly, the guy is completely out of control. Many thanks. Dbuckner 08:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Native American
I have no special info on this subject, sorry. I just tried to organize it better by grouping various articles together into categories. Hope it helped. Good luck on your own work. Thanks Hmains 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for the comments - but I really don't know what is to be done. What you say sounds a good idea, I suppose we could try it. I'll support it. Dbuckner 08:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy - thanks
I'm going slow and careful - but I am also hoping to see the dispute come to an end not too long from now. As I'm learning about the subject, I've set up a page for my own questions to try and get views. Thats because different people's views will rapidly help establish consensus and other policy issues, and that's the quickest way to fix a dispute. If any party is too unreasonable, over the medium term that'll show -- but to me I'm new so I'm watching a while more.

Take a look at Talk:Philosophy/Workshop and see what you think as starters. Hope this helps, do comment if needed back to me. FT2 (Talk 23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on FT2 talk page
I thought about this and wondered if you should perhaps leave out certain bits, if you see what I mean. You can always communicate by email for things of this sort. Best  Dbuckner 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hotel California
What do you mean by that expression? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * How are you? --Ludvikus 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Hotel California :


 * I was referring to the song by the Eagles by the name Hotel California. The words of the song that came to my mind were" you can check out anytime you'd like, but you can never leave". I was making an allusion of user Chris "backing towards the door" of the philosophy section with the Hotel California song. In the song, a pro- tagonist is lured into the Hotel California by a mysterious, beautiful woman. Once inside, he finds himself in a decadent party, where everyone is bent on self destruction. He tries to escape, but finds the doorway barred. In my mind, I was comparing the lure of Philosophy and the mystery woman of the Hotel California. It was a humorous attempt on my part of saying to Chris . . ..


 * "Yeah, you're trapped here forever".

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How are you, Richiar?
I would be very interested in hearing from you regarding Aggression, the you use of insults, vulgarities, etc.
 * I notice that horse image which suggests you have some knowledge on it.
 * What does it do to a person when he is called by such graphiv terms?
 * What is its relation to Rationality?
 * Are you familiar with Michel Foucault?
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Current disruption on Philosophy Talk
Hi - your comments on the talk page have been insightful and useful. Unfortunately it is very hard to locate them due to the current disruption on the page (mostly caused by Ludvikus, in my view, though there is one other, who is less disruptive). A community ban on one of the editors (Ludvikus) has been proposed by Banno, which I strongly support. However, other administrators feel there is not much evidence of any disruption. If you do feel that there is a problem, and that current conditions make work on the article difficult or impossible, please leave a message on FT2's talk page. FT2 is currently co-ordinating work on the Philosophy article. Dbuckner 08:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am impatient
The irony is that I have only been involved for a few weeks - not years, like some editors. All I wanted to do was polish up a few philosophy articles - who knew??? I'll check out the Standards thing when I get a moment. KD Tries Again 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)KD

RfC on Ludvikus?
I agree with your perception of that editor, but my best guess is that he will soon exceed the bounds of civility again and face the consequences. At this point, marshalling evidence for another RfC may be unnecessary. All the best.KD Tries Again 16:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)KD

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
Much needed in these trying times. Dbuckner 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks also for the note on editing - I will get to it; been under the weather this week. KD Tries Again 19:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)KD

malice
You should distinguish between "malicious" and "destructive". The first speaks to motive, the second does not. In any case, can't you see that L. is trying to do better?

"There is no try, there is only do." -- Yoda

Rick Norwood 13:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the squabbling has got to stop.

I do not think that discussing the squabbling will help it stop.

I think improving the article should be the focus here.

Rick Norwood 16:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reason I reverted
There was a POV push along with misspellings as well as an unsourced quote. If you wish to do a copyedit minus the quote and POV push, you're welcome. Ronbo76 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the main part I objected to:


 * The fur industry was undermined by twin blows of changing fashion, as demand for silk hats replacing the demand for beaver fur, and the devastation of the beaver population through over-hunting. As a result, many trappers found themselves in search of a livelihood. Carson remembered, "Beaver was getting scarce, it became necessary to try our hand at something else".  Ronbo76 01:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comanche
On 16 March 2007 you added to the bibliography in the Comanche article. It is always a good idea to verify the author and title of material that is cited. In this case, the author is "Fehrenbach" rather than "Fehrenback". It is also appropriate to put bibliographic citations in proper form. In this case the title published in 2003 was Comanches: The History of a People. Unless a newer edition is revised, citation should be to the original publication, in this case by Knopf in 1974. It is unusual, but not unheard of, for publishers to change a title. In this case Anchor Press changed the title from the original Comanches: The Destruction of a People to the less POV Comanches: The The History of a People. Often this information will be in a note or preface at the beginning of a book. This highly regarded book was already cited in the Comanche bibliography. Unless an edition is a revised edition, there is no point to additional listings. Because of the change in title, and the possibility of confusion, I have added a note after the Fehrenbach entry. Thanks for calling the title change to our collective attention. --Bejnar 02:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Existentialism
Thanks. I considered just replacing the new version with the old, but didn't want to get into a war about it. I agree the changes were well-intentioned, but they just served to make the section that little bit worse than it was (and it wasn't perfect). I always try to flag any substantial changes I intend to make on the Talk page before actually making them. Maybe I'll try to work it back into shape when I feel a bit better disposed to the project. I do take Rick Norwood's point: one has to assume that whatever one does will be edited, removed or messed up as soon as one stops paying attention.KD Tries Again 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)KD

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Medieval philosophy
Hello! Which page were you referring to? Medieval philosophy I got started on, and completed the Arabic philosophy section. The Latin philosophy was such a daunting thought that I gave up. edward (buckner) 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Diana Krall - The Look of Love.jpg
Hello, Richiar. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Diana Krall - The Look of Love.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Richiar. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Seabird
I have moved Comparison example (FES) Seabird to User:Richiar/sandbox. Self-referential stuff like this should be kept out of the (Main) namespace. I also note that you have copied rendered text into an edit box, thereby destroying all wiki markup. Even for a discussion document, this seems a wrong thing to do. -- RHaworth 19:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how to make myself any clearer, but I will try. Comparison example (FES) Seabird is not a Wikipedia article in its own right, it is a discussion/draft piece. Therefore it should be kept out of the (Main) namespace, ie. out of the area where normal articles go. There are several other namespaces which might be appropriate: Wikipedia:, Talk:, etc. I have decided to put it in your user space. You are at liberty to move it from there to a different title in any other non-Main namespace.

Similarly, I felt that Urantial Book chalkboard was not an article. I have moved it to User:Richiar/Urantia. -- RHaworth 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK: I'm not trying to breach the rules here: what you said is slightly clearer. The "chalkboard" was not meant to be an article, but to be a "chalkboard" to move content around into more acceptable encyclopedic form: the content of the Urantia Book is particularly difficult, sort of like trying to convert Hegel into an understandable form. So it takes quite a bit of rearranging ideas and sentences. It was placed on the talk page *1* of the Urantia Book so other editors could see and participate in the rearranging process without provoking reactions by playing with the content on the main article "Urantia Book".
 * Are you saying that it is inappropriate to have this "chalkboard" on the Urantia talkpage section? or, if it was under the namespace "chalkboard" - talk, then it would be acceptable? *1*
 * I'm not trying to belabor the point, but to understand the point. Thanks for trying to help me clarify this. Richiar 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

*1* - the whole point is that a title of Urantial Book chalkboard places the article in the (Main) namespace; it was not 'on the talk page'. A title of Talk:The Urantia Book/sandbox ("sandbox" is more widely used around here) would have been OK. 'namespace "chalkboard" ' is meaningless: there is no "chalkboard" namespace. Are you begining to understand? -- RHaworth 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy and Physics
Hello. Thank you for your polite reply. I just want to apologize for not responding sooner. Thanks for your suggestion: I'll try to incorporate the various suggestions and think about it myself at some point, but right now I'm too busy and I haven't thought about it enough to justify an opinion right now. Thanks again for the polite reply. Krea 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)