Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter Damian (original account) (talk | contribs) at 12:39, 18 January 2007 (undermined credibility). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Useful links

• M:Foundation issues
• Misplaced Pages:Policy Library
• Misplaced Pages:Utilities
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict resolution
• Misplaced Pages:Peer review
• Misplaced Pages:Boilerplate text
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types
• Misplaced Pages:Template messages
• Misplaced Pages:Category
• Fundamental categories
• Misplaced Pages:List of WikiProjects
• meta:Help:Special characters
• Polytonic orthography
• Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of edits
• Misplaced Pages:Welcoming committee
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' how-to guide
• Special:Ipblocklist
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard
• AfD-closure boilerplate
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
• Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion
• Category:Images with unknown source
• Special:Newpages
• Recent changes by anons
• Misplaced Pages:List of WikiProjects

Pages I often cite

• Misplaced Pages:Use subheadings sparingly
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph
• Misplaced Pages:Make only links relevant to the context
• Misplaced Pages:Piped link
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts

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/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/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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages pages. As soon as one user id is blocked, he creates another. Since he is apparently using an anonymiser, Misplaced Pages 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 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, , 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 Misplaced Pages). 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 , 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)