User talk:Banno - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Banno (talk | contribs) at 00:39, 19 January 2007 (→Thank you for the "yes"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:39, 19 January 2007 by Banno (talk | contribs) (→Thank you for the "yes")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Old stuff: , ,

Epistemology article

Hi - just thought I'd let you know I've responded to your point on the talk page of the Epistemology article. I'd like to revert, and would appreciate your thoughts. Breadandroses 21:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration against me

I have filed Request for Arbitration against you and your cabal. --DotSix 02:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Banno 02:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest again that you get an advocate? See Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates. As it stands, your request has a good chance of being dismissed out of hand, and we don't want that. Remove the personal attacks and add the required links to evidence. Have you read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy? Banno 02:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Too late. Banno 02:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Someone else has inserted the DotSix RfAr at the bottom of the page as a request for clarification. If his RfAr did not consist largely of insults, it would be either a reasonable reply or something that could be merged with the current case. Robert McClenon 17:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration of DotSix requires evidence in a new form

It looks like we have to add the evidence against DotSix a second time, in a different form at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix/Evidence. I have added some already. Scroll down to see the template they want us to use. They also want us to fill out the template at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix. I have already pasted in the stuff from the RfAr including your statement. Hope that is ok with you. --Nate Ladd 02:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out. Banno 07:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Troll food

Since you not long ago counseled me to "stop feeding the troll," I was especially amused at the great "feast" you offered him today in the talk page of epistemology. I'm not being critical on either count, BTW. I understand the good sense behind your "don't feed the troll" admonitions, I just found myself, a sufferer from analytical exuberance, incapable of refraing from my subsequent comments. As to the feast you offered him today, let's hope it's somewhat akin to a farewell dinner. --Christofurio 02:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

That was quite hilarious, I don't think it was as much for that guy, as it was for the rest of the contributors. Just finished reading it, and I can feel my abdominal muscles. Thank you! --Gutza 20:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Like all overindulgence, it is to be regretted in the morning. It seemed like the right thing to do yesterday, but such outbreaks tend to scare off more than just their intended target. It has been pleasantly quiet over at epistemology, Truth, and knowledge since I wrote it though. Glad you enjoyed it. Banno 20:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think our cabal needs a name, guys. I suggest, "Cabal Of Rational Earthlings," or CORE for short. --Christofurio 14:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy

Thanks for the message; I've added my name to the list. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment; I'm hoping to do more rewriting, though I'm worried that edit wars might break out again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the Wiki without an edit war, woudl it? (joke). Banno 20:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Leadoff Batter

Thanks for your kind words. I emailed about 6 members of the Arb Committee last night asking them to at least read the proposed injunction and it looks like it worked. 5 of them voted for it this morning.

When I was in grade school, if a kid was distracting others by making faces or goofing in some way, the teacher would punish him by making him stand at the front of the class and repeat the performance. Kids realized how stupid they looked so it was quite effective. Alford is in that position now and judging from his hysterical reaction he is finding the experience excruciating. --Nate Ladd 17:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well done. Not long now.

No doubt you noticed the stuff on Getter? Now he decides to do some reading - but of course completely misunderstands, or more accurately misinterprets, the argument. ultimately, I feel sorry for the poor ignoramus. But I think we have been as fair to him as was possible given his attitude. incidentaly, I agree with the idea of giving him enough rope to hang himself - as was done in the RfC. Banno 21:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Once again, my sympathy for him misleads me. On checking the Gettier article, I find that he hasn't learned to read, but to copy-and-paste. Oh well. Banno 22:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I also thought at first that he was sincere-but-dense. But the more I know about him, especially Ancheta Wis's discovery of this Usenet history, I have become convinced that he just an insincere troll and that he pretends not to understand things that he actually does understand. He's been making this claim that belief and knowledge are actually disjoint sets for many years and many people refutted it long before he came to Misplaced Pages. He's known he was wrong for years, but he is incapable of admitting it; and knows that asserting his claim is an effective way of getting people to react to him, which is what he really wants. The proof is the way that he refuses to answer the questions you, me, and Christofurio have put to him. If he were sincere, he would stand up proudly and say "I dont' believe the sun exists." But he knows that would be reductio-ad-absurdum, so he dodges it so he won't have to admit he's wrong. I think he probably knows that Gettier does not support his claim. But he'll pretend not to understand that as long doing so enables him to get a rise out of others. --Nate Ladd 02:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did the same thing with the accounts he created; that is, that he created the additional accounts, did not want to use them, could not face asking for them to be deleted, and so made up the elaborate and silly story that they are impostors because of his inability to admit error. Banno 06:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

His latest response to me in Talk:Epistemology was so juvenile I don't feel my usual chronic-arguer's impulse to reply. He has rebutted himself quite well. I'm glad, though, that I've earned one of his cutesy punning nicknames ("Christo Furious" -- how clever!) --Christofurio 19:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

DotSix

DotSix has been blocked under his IP 67.182.157.6, but has made six edits since then using 172.198.185.228 . He is taking ArbCom for a ride. Banno 21:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Unlike 67.182.157.6, which seems to be fixed and used only by him, 172.198.185.228 is an AOL IP. We cannot block AOL IPs for more than 15 minutes. Since he is not doing any rapid-fire editing, any block would be futile (it would already have expired by the time of his next edit). The ArbCom is widely known for being really slow (which comes to no surprise considering the amount of stuff they have to deal with), so be patient. --cesarb 21:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the technical explanation. But the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I predict that DotSix's antics will force their hand. Banno 21:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

vprotected

I protected your user page (User:Banno) because DotSix was getting really obnoxious. If you want to edit it, feel free to ask for unprotection. --cesarb 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Banno 21:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have withdrawn my certification of the RFC against Bensaccount and moved it to "endorse". He has stopped pushing the scientific point of view and I'm willing to wipe the slate clean. if an RFC isn't "certified" by two editors it will be deleted. Whether you change your vote is up to you. I'm just informing of my change. FuelWagon 06:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, he hasn't been editing either. Obviously, the RFC got his attention. Now, if possible, I'd like to see him come back and edit according to policy. The only way to know if he can do that is for him to make some edits that follow NPOV. I'm willing to withdraw the RFC if that will act as an invitation for him to come back. If he continues to push SPOV, then another RFC will be called for. But he needs to come back before we know if that step would be needed. FuelWagon 13:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I posted a note to the RFC talk page asking for an admin to delete the RFC. . Once that happens, I'll post something on Bensaccount's talk page. FuelWagon 22:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Banno, I'm sorry SlimVirgin's axe-grinding spilled over on you around this RFC. I filed an RFC against her about a month ago, and she keeps butting heads with me ever since. A few days ago, she announced that she will not assume any good faith on my part for any action I do on wikipedia. When I posted the request to delete the RFC, she must have seen it and jumped on it as a chance to attack me, tell the wikipedia world what a horrible editor I am, and what bad things I've done. That she questioned the entire RFC publicly means she questioned the good faith of all the editors who endorsed the RFC, including you, and for that, I am sorry. I would say disregard her comments as personal axe-grinding directed at me. And I apologize for any sparks that land on you as a result. FuelWagon 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

More About that bridge

I've decided to take this out of the Talk:Epistemology page and pursue it here because, although fun, it isn't pertinent to how that article should be written.

To say that my hypothetical is about "identity, not epistemology" seems to me inadequate, although interesting. When is a bridge the "same" bridge. If a bridge is rebuilt, plank by plank, over a period of a year (because that's how many planks there are) then when would it become a new bridge? Such a question isn't very far from epistemology, anyway, because our notion of continuing thinghood is crucial to our learning process.

But re-work the hypothetical if you like. The terrorists (or Nazis, or whomever) loosen the bolts on the bridge, in the hope and expectation that a large truck will come by the next morning and the bridge will then dramatically collapse under its weight. The bus doesn't come by. But our former bridge engineer DOES come by, and walks across the bridge in (accurate) confidence that he'll make it safely across. I've already stipulated where that confidence came from.

Is this the "same" bridge, removing the identity difficulty? Does the tampering nonetheless defeat the equation of the engineer's confidence with knowledge? --Christofurio 23:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

"Isn't the engineer simply wrong, in that he has based his belief on information that is now not true - that the bolts were inserted correctly?"

Here we get to the significance of the word "now". Gettier-style examples which don't make inventive use (as Gettier did) of absurd-sounding conjunctions often achieve the same effect by requiring events over a period of time, so that what would have been knowledge at one point ceases to be knowledge (but can be said to remain justified true belief) at some subsequent "now". The engineer isn't wrong in the sense of believing something false. The belief on which I've focused is that "I can walk across this bridge safely." He didn't check the bolts just before formulating that view to himself, but if this is enough to defeat a knowledge claim than we may end up with a very deep sort of skepticism, since almost nothing I believe is independent of the past acquisition of knowledge which I have not immediately re-confirmed. This is why I think Gettier has pointed to a real problem, which epistemology must address, rather than deconstruct, although his own "cases" for it weren't so great. --Christofurio 13:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So, your own view is the minimalist one that an accurate guess is still knowledge? That resolves the Gettier problems, all right, but sounds too sweeping and arbitrary for my tastes. Perhaps my intuitions are different from yours (and yours are in a distinct minority) or you are willing to adopt this counter-intuitive view to resolve problems you see as otherwise irresolvable. There are some philosophers of science who say "anything goes," too. But that tells us too little about science, and your analogous view tells us too little about knowledge, IMHO. --Christofurio 23:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Re invitation to WPP

Hi, thanks for the invitation. I've hopped, but, being a physicist, I will be reading more than contributing. Karol 00:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Uncritical criticism

Comments on Talk:Deconstruction. I've elaborated the reasons for removal, which I've reinstated. If you want to respond and argue for the links, you are welcome to do so. Buffyg 00:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

He's Back

Please see the He's Baaaack section of my talk page. --Nate Ladd 22:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe User:Ehrlich might (I'm not sure) be a sockpuppet of Adrigo/DotSix (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/DotSix). He has the same peculiar theses, is a very recent user who nevertheless knows wikipedia policies well and edits the same pages as the injoined user did. I asked User:Theresa knott for IP check. Was that the right person? Jules LT 18:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Talk:Truth, I suspected it might be Dot Six again. The editor was User:Airtight, whose only activity was two edits on truth. If you see this editor crop up again in Dot Six areas, you might keep an eye on him. I didn't mention it since I didn't want to accuse an innocent editor, but I thought about it. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If you recall the Bensaccount RfC

I've been RfC'd by SlimVirgin on violating Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. I've posted some information about how she injected herself into the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bensaccount dispute after we requested that an admin delete the RfC. It is my opinion that she brought her dispute against me on into the Bensaccount RfC and that she made the Bensaccount RfC a battleground. I've posted a description of what I think happened around the Bensaccount RfC here ]. Could you provide a comment of your view about what happened around the Bensaccount RfC. You can post it here Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2. Thanks. FuelWagon 18:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/DotSix case. →Raul654 01:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote, and HDI discussion underway ...

Hello! I hope you're well. I'd like to thank you for participating in the vote earlier to include the HDI in the country infobox/template. Yay!

After a lengthy gestation, a discussion piece has been prepared to help give form to the vote. If you've a preference for how and where this information should appear in the infobox, I'd appreciate it if you head on over there and comment. :)

After a decision is arrived at, if at all, I'm also hopeful to prevail upon you to add the values (if you're willing and comfortable) for a handful of countries; the more people doing it, the less time it will take to implement the vote and realise the fruits of our collective labour.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 03:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV under attack

Hi Banno! I really liked your definition of NPOV as "We do not take sides when we word a paragraph so as to be acceptable to both, or all, parties". I feel the same way. Anyway, right now I have troubles defending NPOV in the Elvis Presley article. One very NPOV-hostile user ( Ted Wilkes ) keeps deleting the phrase "died on the toilet" from the Death and Burial - section, because in his view it's "uncyclopedic gossip". I disagree with Wilkes, it's just that dying on the toilet is a taboo in our society, which is the real reason why it always gets deleted. "Et tu Brute" ( Julius Caesar's last words ) is not any more documented, yet it's in the encyclopedia.

The "died on the toilet" phrase btw points to a very cool and brand new Misplaced Pages article called "toilet-related injuries" : http://en.wikipedia.org/Toilet-related_injury

I would appretiate it if you could take a look at the Elvis article and maybe share some of your your thoughts regarding NPOV with us.

Thanks! (129.241.134.241 12:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Philosophy

Sure. I'll be glad to contribute with as much as I know about philosophy. deeptrivia 17:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have some questions for you

They are posted on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy Go for it! 11:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Urgent deletion issue: you voted before you had all the facts

Hi, I created the Philosophy (navigation) template, and I voted for saving it too (as an IP). However, when I duplicated the template to adopt a new tag name, Infinity0 had a cow. We've been in an edit war since I started the template, and we escalated our battle to TfD, which was a big mistake, for now the whole project (both templates) is at risk because some people are voting to delete both. Meanwhile Infinity0 and I are voting to delete each other's TfD candidates, ironically pushing the delete votes for both templates into the majority. We need your help. Neither of us want both templates to die.

Here are the reasons to choose the "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide" tag:

Both templates are identical, as changes are ported after each round of disputes, to keep them that way. We've nearly come to a compromise on the few edits that we are still at odds over, but Infinity0 is one stubborn ___. By competing we have improved the template continuously, which is a good thing.
The conversion of the old tag to the new tag in the articles is complete.
- The new tag has placement in Misplaced Pages articles. It is hooked in to the top level of the Philosophy hierarchy, and then some.
- The old tag has virtually no placement in any Misplaced Pages articles. It's discussion page link sits on a bunch of users' talk pages, and that's about it. And since I placed most of the old tags, it didn't seem out of place for me to upgrade them.
Since the content of the templates are identical, and the fact that jousting will continue on whichever template wins, it makes sense to vote for the one that maintains the project's presence on Misplaced Pages.

Please vote to save the template: click here. For further discussions click here

Go for it! 03:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

My comments on your edit.

I am most concerned by the fact that, in your own words, you edited in haste what has been composed over a long period of time. I haven't read your edit -- I'm waiting for it to settle down, and there doesn't seem to be any point in reading something that is likely to be reverted -- the history page is a series of reverts and rereverts.

As I explained in the talk pages, which it appears you have also not read, my first edit was in some haste, and so it was incomplete. My editing yesterday was over a several hours, and is the result of due consideration of the article. They are explained on the talk page in detail. Banno

I find your attitude somewhat perverse. You admit to having read neither my edits nor my explanation; I can only conclude that you do not object to the particulars of my edits, but to the very idea of changing the article. If so, perhaps you should consider refraining form working on the Wiki, since change is the nature of that beast. Banno 20:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that, when things settle down, you only edit when you have the time to do a careful job, and that you only edit one section at a time and wait for a response. If you think an article is -- what were your words? -- dog vomit? -- and you want to redo the entire article for start to finish, then at the very least you discuss your plan on the talk page, instead of doing a major edit between breakfast and rushing off to work. Rick Norwood 16:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"A Dog's Breakfast" - a rather apt metaphor, I think, given that for example the etymology appeared twice, that paragraphs on the history of philosophy were scattered throughout the article, and so on. Banno

Rick, I have not "redone the entire article for start to finish". Read the article again now, compared with Miketwo's version, and you will see that they are much the same. Get over it, my friend. Or better still, make some constructive comments. Banno 20:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

dude

I have made a complete rewrite. Thanks for your help. Are there any philosophers here (including yourself) who could help with the bits I know less well, such as ethics and postmodernism? Valve was one such, I think. Dbuckner 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

RFA/Banno-- a possibility which you might welcome.

Banno, I am not sure if you would appreciate a nomination for Mop+Bucket. Would that be onerous for you? I am well aware that public scrutiny is not pleasant for many of us, me included. Please do not worry if you are not ready to answer; I am taking this action at the request of others, namely Taxman. If you were to agree then I would simply be following the actions templated by BDAbramson. I would also be relying on their advice to ensure a reasonable chance at success for the outcome of RFA/Banno. If you want a higher probability of success, then we could probably work something out to increase the chances, but it would be a learning process. Regards, --Ancheta Wis 01:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'll give it some thought. I'm travelling at present. Banno 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a proposal. --Ancheta Wis 11:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to answer the 3 questions in the above template, before I post, and I have to get the dates and times OK. --Ancheta Wis 21:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

OK we are almost there. If you are ready then please indicate your acceptance on the subpage Misplaced Pages:Request for adminship/Banno. I will then post the subpage to the main page when you are satisfied with the entry. I also plan to let Nate Ladd know about your candicacy. --Ancheta Wis 00:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Banno, have you see the latest question? This is a heads-up. I quote "*I would like to ask the candidate's view on Misplaced Pages:Process is Important? DES 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)"

But since DESiegel asked on multiple pages, you may wish to wait for another to answer theirs first. --Ancheta Wis 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Francs 2000 02:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Banno - Welcome to the cabal! Congratulations! --best, kevin 04:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin star, from an Aztec Stone of the Sun

Banno, you're welcome. Have an Admin Star. Wear it in good health; beware the power. --Ancheta Wis 04:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to congratulate you on your successful adminship, and also to thank you for addressing the concerns I raised, hence my change of vote. Good luck. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:38, Jan. 13, 2006

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --King of All the Franks 08:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you made it. Have fun! --Go for it! 09:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone deserved it, you were clearly the one. Congrats. KSchutte 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Belated thanks

No problem, I'm glad I could help. Congratulations. Eluchil 23:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary_philosophers

Please vote here. — goethean ॐ 22:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Just doing my best to help out.--Lacatosias 09:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Falsification

I just wanted to say I appreciate very much what you are doing to this article recently...Kenosis 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sokal

Aaron, you appear to be the author of this dif . Could you provide a citation for the Sokal quote? Without one, it is doomed for deletion. Thanks in anticipation Banno 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That diff includes the citation -- Fashionable Nonsense, 62f -- but apparently it got deleted in the intervening time. I've added it back. AaronSw 18:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Misplaced Pages- The voice of Kosovar

Thanks

Hey, thanks for noticing my sophia nomination. :) Even though you originally opposed that template :P -- infinity0 22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Awesome work!

Hey Banno -- just wanted to say hello, as well as give you maximum kudos for maintaining the WikiProject I offhandedly started two years (!) ago. I just checked back in after months of not even bothering to log into the 'pedia while browsing, and see that it's developed impressively -- thanks for taking on the (admittedly onerous!) task of keeping of up what I was too lazy to stick with. :) And you've made yourself an Administrator in the process! Congratulations, and thanks for making the world a better place! — Adam Conover † 02:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Failure of Wiki

Yeah, pretty serious problems. I have no doubt that, to some extent, it is the case that no-nothing meddlers ruin content.

The only catch is that these heroic voracious content generators may also be utterly wrong. They may then generate plausible-sounding systemic critiques which are only motivated to defend their POV edits, ostensibly against no-nothing meddlers, but in fact against more reasonable users who offer substantive and well-researched critiques. If one cannot abide by these simple expectations, then they're not really going to feel welcome here.

Anyway, it's pointless to talk in generalities about these things; one must provide specific cases or else just earn a shrug. Lucidish 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I say all of this despite the fact that some articles which I put real research and effort into, such as that of Social psychology, were absolutely mauled. I make no greivance, because though the editors were not reasonable in their deletions (indeed, it was fairly clear that they did not bother to even read the material), the content which they used to replace it was arguably more on-topic and concise. So I got over it, because that was the right thing to do. Lucidish 22:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Truth, etc.

Re: your comment "Dare I say, this problem seems to follow the authors around": I first met you (as well as first interacted with JA) while working extensively for an explanation of scientific method in sufficiently plain English to actually be read and potentially understood by reasonably intelligent readers. I expended in the process a great deal of time and effort trying to save the readers from excess technicality, meandering explanations and various other highly obscure uses of the language. One could still debate a number of points, but at least we presently have a reasonable summary explanation of method for general readership at the beginning of that article, and an arguably reasonable explanation of such things as demarcation criteria (yes, a few points were compromised there that should have been knocked out as OR, but on balance it quite arguably was a significant improvement). Several months ago I embarked on an attempt to correct radical flaws in the article on empiricism, which required a very substantial amount of research to show that the then-current content was essentially made up off the top of some previous editors' heads. It had in it such made-up concepts as "naive empiricism" and other flights of fancy, which needed to be carefully parsed and justified as to their removal (you already know how hard it is to "prove a negative"). After the article had languished in that state for well over a year, as soon as I got involved, two editors in particular immediately got involved on that article, Jon Awbrey and Lacatosias (though I should point out that a JA edit initially called my attention to the state of that article). That was a great deal of work, as the edit history shows, to keep that article from becoming so dense that it would be inaccessible to virtually all readers on the planet, yet still provide interested readers with meaningful explanations of that difficult subject. Some compromises were made, and somehow we arrived at a reasonably workable article in due course.

What you have seen more recently is illustrative of the kind of thing I had to deal with, except that truth is a far more difficult subject, and the problem of obscurity and stubbornness is far, far greater. The discussion there has basically driven everyone away at this point, and I surely hope I am not part of the cause of that exodus. What do you believe I should do, just cede that topic to Jon? Recently I've argued over and over on that talk page, consistently with my general trend in editing, that the highly obscure and complex stuff belongs in the article on truth theory which Jon created and the mere existence of which he successfully defended on the explicit basis that there is a place for a separate more technical article. The reader of the article of more common interest (truth) deserves a reasonable summary (not a complete glossing over, but a readable summary) with links to relevant main articles on the numerous subtopics, the various theories and other slants. This editorial approach is quite standard for an article on a topic of common interest (or at least more standard than providing the reader with a flood of gobbledygook). Banno, where is the necessary additional support for this basic editorial position? Nowhere, because all the other editors have given up on the languistic plague of JA and washed their hands of it. I hope you'll forgive me for getting a bit of this off my chest, so to speak. But I don't happen to think an article such as truth should be ceded by default. Jon succeeded in asserting a place for his obscurities in truth theory but he's left that one in a mess and is again trying to force his ever-changing hand on the truth article. So yes, I continue to argue the case for a readable article there. (It also would have been less painful had the appearance of sockpuppetry not cast an additional set of ethical dilemmas about someone possibly doing a wrong thing for a "right" reason.) Take care. ... Kenosis 16:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks — I'm not sure that I deserve it, but I accept it gratefully anyway. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Trolling on Truth

Any particular reason you reverted by removal of trolling on the Talk:Truth page? KillerChihuahua 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Any particular reason you found my comments to be lacking in civility? They were quite civil enough. Sorry, but wike is not an emerald city with a shiny ivory tower where everyone lives happily together forever and ever amen.

Additionally, you revert the removal of trolling and then give me grief? Please try to be consistant. Jim62sch 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am being consistent. The troll was reverted to make specific the charge against him. This was then moved to the correct namespace. The two issues are not related. Banno 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, OK. Been by the page lately? BTW: you've not answered my first question, I'm sure this was just an oversight, but an answer would be appreciated. Jim62sch 23:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying someone has their head up their ass is uncivil, even if it is done with big words. JA's problems might eventually result in arbitration; your post would not have helped. Banno 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

But was it true? ;) OK, I'll agree with you, although it was meant as humour -- actually as a parody of his intentionally obscure style of writing. Obviously, you know some Greek, which is rather refreshing in these days when a comprehensive understanding of one's native tongue seems to be optional (at least in the US).

Also, I hadn't realised that you had an eye toward RfAr -- had I realised that, I'd not have posted the parody. In any case, I understand your point quite well and thank you for the explanation. Take care. Jim62sch 12:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Of interest? User:Folajimi

Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Category Philosopher

Greetings, please visit Category_talk:Philosophers#Definition_of_philosopher sometime. I've made a suggestion and would like to request your feedback. Thanks, Universitytruth 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured Article Candidates/Jerry Fodor

Another thanks for the work you put into the Fodor article. It is very difficult to write clearly on such topics, but you have succeeded. Well done. Banno 21:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You now have a chance to back up these words, old boy. If you honestly think the article is well-written, go and write support on the FAC. If not, improve it or state what's wrong with it. "Get some input from third parties"... yeah right. Philosphers do not KNOW HOW to collaborate on something like Misplaced Pages because they spend their entire lives finding errors in others arguments and tearing each other down. Scientists, historians, etc.. HAVE to collaborate or there enterprise would ceasce to exist. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say this? I just can't recall the context... Banno

rand as major philosopher

actually her status as a philosopher is disputed, on her own page. how then can she be a major philosopher? --Buridan 21:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to become involved in what I think is a minor issue; rather, to point to the proper Wiki solution to the present edit war: write about the issue somewhere in the encyclopedia rather than arguing about it in the talk pages. Banno 21:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Private language argument

Hi - thanks, in return, for your work on this. I keep coming back (and occasionally spotting typos) because I'm interested, having never really understood the argument. I'd be happy to do a proper copyedit, if that would be useful, when you've finished (during my PhD I earned grocery money as a proofreader, which may explain why I'm unable to let a typo go...). Cheers, Sam Clark 22:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Truth theory

Just a message to let you know that I decided to put this on AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Truth theory (3rd nomination).

Not because I want to see it deleted per se, but because the current redirect is only a way to circumvent the 2 prior AfDs. I know there have been issues with the author of the article, but since those issues are not documented on the talk page (I see only a content dispute and nothing to point towards abuse) I was unable to verify the extent of the problem. Please make your case for deletion (or merge/redirect) on the AfD page. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Philosophy Query

I am thinking of using WikiProject philosophy as part of the assessment for a graduate course in philosophy next year. Your name is one of those that comes up most frequently on the sites I visit. Any comments on the idea? Anarchia 10:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating Infoboxes

Can anyone help me on how to create infoboxes???

AmericanXplorer13 18:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

- Edit: Nevermind, I found it.

AmericanXplorer13 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge

Banno. Can you provide references of works that support the assertion that 'lost' knowledge is still knowledge. At best it can only be possible to say that it 'was knowledge'. My reasoning for this is mainly consistency with the rest of the article - if 'knowledge' that is not held by a person then it cannot fill Plato's criteria of being 'believed'. Also, although the previous passage about Indian thought has been removed, it also suggested that knowledge has no isolated existence - there has to be a person who wants to know it rgds, ||:) johnmark† 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical Societies

Banno. At the moment, I am doing all that I can to supply a solid core from which someone else can produce a useful article on the Aristotelian Society for the Systematic Study of Philosophy (or Aristotelian Society).

Someone commented that the page was without categorization. I have done all I could to meet that request; and, as well, I have done all that I can to cross-reference the different philosophers who have, from time to time, held the post of president.

This activity has revealed that, despite the fact that there seems to be a category for philosophical journals, there is no category for philosophical societies/associations. I thought that this omission might just be an oversight; and, given that I have no idea about how to construct a category, and given that you seem to have a very good idea on how the overall set of philosophy stuff ought to be represented, I thought that I should write to you and ask if it is possible for you to create a such a category -- provided, of course, there is not some (unknown to me) compelling reason for such a category not existing. Best to you Lindsay658 00:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See User:Lindsay658 for response to your reply Lindsay658 03:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

When is a circular argument not valid?

I don't see how a circular argument can fail to be valid. If an argument is really of the form

θ
(possibly other stuff)
Therefore, θ

then there is no way to consistently suppose the premises are true and the conclusion false. PurplePlatypus 07:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Philosophy

While I appreciate your attempt at peace-making, I'm afraid that in this case it's a bit off-target. While I deprecate Dbuckner's language, I agree with the basic sentiment; Ludvikus (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is insufferable, and a real obstacle to any progress on the article. I gave up fairly quickly because this is the start of a busy term for me, and I can't afford the time or energy — but I can't imagine getting anywhere with him in any case. He's arrogant, offensive, stubborn, overflowing with half-witted ideas, and completely unable to discuss issues rationally. I don't know what can be done; philosophy articles tend to attract this sort of editor for some reason, which is why I tend to avoid them, despite philosophy being my profession. They generally stay within the strict bounds of policy, leaving no grounds for disciplinary action, but they make life impossible for anybody who wants to make positive contributions. I don't generally have much time for Larry Sanger, having had run-ins with him before Misplaced Pages existed — but this sort of article lends serious support to his complaint about the knowledgeable editor being submerged by the ochlocracy to produce sub-standard (or even downright loopy) articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I swore off the page myself, and then (probably because I'd had a wikibreak) allowed myself to be persuaded back. Never again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendations. I appreciate them, and the spirit with which they are give.

If you have the time to study carefully what's happening there you would find, I believe, less than four (4) characters ganging up on me with abusive ad-honinum arguments.

This person, User:Mel Etitis, made only ONE contribution, regarding a trivialization of Thales, who is widely (references/sources) held to be the First Philosopher.

He came in with a description of himself as nauseated - exactly by what - he didn't say.

He claims to be a professional philosopher at the University of Oxford, but he does not use his real name - so we cannot verify it. But is it relevant? No. Misplaced Pages looks to published sources, not to self-professed professors, at Oxford or elsewhere.

If you look carefully at my PASTING of the Protocols of Zion quote, you will find that it was User:Dbuckner reacting to me on that page - but on the subject of Philosophy.

Since the issue is the term rational, it was perfectly appropriate to quote him to demonstrate, by empirical evidence, that he's using irrational techniques to get his point of view accepted.

I'm certainly for obtaining a consensus. What we probably need is an impartial voice. Perhaps its you. And maybe it's better if it's someone disinterested in the particular article.

Best regards, --Ludvikus 05:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: I just noticed you Donald Davidson quote. It's so true (in my unhumble opinion). I think I'll use it (I'm not going to say I got it from your page - but I bet it will be knocked down just because I introduced it - said to say so, but that the nature of the world)! Ludvikus 05:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On Mel Etitis & your Donald Davidson quote

  It seems Mel Etitis enjoys creating a straw-man so he could tear him down.
  He ignores my reference to Liebniz on China, and to Nietzsche on Zoroastrianism.
  What he shows above is the influence of the East on the West. Who denies that?
  Only his straw man. But what has he informed us about regarding non-Western philosophy?
  Nothing, zero, nada. And he will be unable to do so in the future. Why?
  Because he reflects the irrational element in philosophy.
  He gets his kicks by looking for disagreement.
  He is not interested in finding what is true in what someone else has to say,
  but rather he enjoys finding fault.
  That, of course, is also heavily spiced with a huge quatity of ignorance.
  I appreciate very well those beautiful flower people of the 1960's.
  They too camouflaged their ignorance in their love of everything Eastern
  (which they also misconstrued). But at least they had LOVE in their hearts.
  Not so it appears is the case of Mel Etitis.
  Because besides enjoying seeking faults,
  he really cannot tell us anything specific about the relation of the East to the West
  - only vague generalities which also reflect the role of the irrational in philosophical
  disputation. Ludvikus 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, generally, ad hominums are invalid, and inconsistent with Wiki policy. However, there's an exception here. Here we have Wiki author/editors who are somewhat, at least, informed about philosophy, writing about philosophy, claiming to be philosophers, and supporting the view that it's a rational inquiry. Accordingly, showing that their own arguments manifest irrationality I believe is definitely appropriate - in this case.

However, I also suspect that you have been a bit influenced by the oratory of this Mel Etitis who claims to be a professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford. I ask you please do not pay attention to what he has to say about me, but read my comments on your own - I trust that you will be able to form an independent assessment - simply because of the quote you have placed on your User page from Donald Davidson.

The other point I wish you to consider is that the dispute involves merely 2 or 3 other editors - certainly less than one can count on one hand. So I think for me to just give in to a consensus of such a small sample would most likely compromise the integrity of the article. Nevertheless, I have agreed to abide by any recommendation you make, and I have also proposed other compromises which are simply being ignored!

Best regards to you, Donald Davidson's student? --Ludvikus 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

hi

I'm sorry I swore. I will clean it up later today. Thanks for your help. The disruptive editor page was a great help, I'll sit down with it later. Best Dbuckner 08:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise to me. Banno 10:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy is irrational?

Please correct the error of misreprenting my position.

You have made it appear that I main thain that Philosophy is irrational.

That's extremely damaging to my credibility, as it is not my position.

Please read my answer to your quiry, and make the appropriate remarks regarding what my view is,

and give the view of others, if you wish to make a contrast?

Thank you. --Ludvikus 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Banno, Ludivikus is quite correct here. He has repeatedly asked that the term be dropped from the definition, which is different from asserting that philosophy is not rational, or whatever. Could you also note that I am not claiming that philosophy is rational, as you appear to imply here. I am claiming that method of philosophy involves rational enquiry. There is a considerable difference between these claims. Dbuckner 13:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I understand your position, but the expression I chose was was too casual. I wonder at what stage being scrupulous become mere pedantry. This is the difficulty faced in the philosophy articles. Banno 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As you see, I'm stepping down for a bit. I have plenty of other things to get on with. And I find the remarks below quite unpleasant, as well as some things left on my talk page. It is of course my fault for losing my temper the other day. Regards. Dbuckner 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, while there may have been differences of opinion on the philosophy page in the past, they were always settled quite amicably. This dispute is of quite a different order. There have been 50 edits overnight by the same person, and more to follow no doubt. I know you see this as a dispute between naughty schoolboys, and both equally to blame. But I don't. Dbuckner 09:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message. I just need a short break, that's all. I also want to see exactly how bad it can get. Dbuckner 10:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree Banno, that use of the word enemy is not good. However, I did alot of work, with many others on a page, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy. This page has been growing over the months, but a user 287182...(?) wanted to delete it (he didnt like the word Anglophone). There was during the deletion process much background talk and promts to others to delete it. A number of these people are involved in the philosophy dispute. Others who voted to keep were pressed to revert their vote.

I never solicited any votes for the article at all. So I feel I was met with great animosity by a cabal of a certain kind of philosopher on here who somehow think that mobocracy can rule in philosophy. So when Ludivkus says enemy I know what he means, however, I don't think of them as enemies, more like a school-mob types, ones that are better just ignored.

I also found out that "consensus" on here comes down to majority vote since the admin, as far as I can see, knew nothing of philosophy when he deleted the page. I've lost faith then in wiki as a possibility for philosophy since it seems to just come down to a vote, and so it is obvious that in philosophy Analytic, English-speaking philosophy will always (and mistakenly) overrule Continental.

--Lucas 11:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding good faith

Thank you for your advice. I do not merely "assume" good faith of you. I truly believe you actually manifest it here, on Misplaced Pages.

However, I direct your attention to the fact that you have awarded this alleged professor a Barnstar, and I imagine the embarrassment that you might possibly experience if you discover that this person has not exhibited good faith.

There's no Wiki rule which requires good faith against bad faith.

My understanding of the rule is that you assume it when you have no reason to believe otherwise.

However, my method is in fact to be quite gentle with this person - whom you respect.

The fact is that he presents himself as a professor, but he has not cited a single word from any work of his which would be relevant to the discourse on Wiki.

The name which he uses does not identify him as an authority.

Nevertheless, he appears to have succeeded in giving more weight to his opinion merely because he claims to be a professor.

When we put scare quotes around a word we merely indicate that the word is to be used cautiously.

If you look carefully, you will find that another, new, editor, has already informed us of her/his belief that there is at least one editor speaking with two voices.

Furthermore, this person's bad faith is manifest by his extremely scarce contributions on the Talk page.

He/she began his/her discourse with an observation of his/her state of "nausea" in having to participate in this Philosophy discourse.

The substantial contributions made by this person have mostly (in the extreme) been made behind the scenes. I do not need any Wiki rules to be aware of the bad faith of this style of his/hers. In order to figure out what that person has to contribute I have to go around the different editors user/discussion pages and fish for his remarks. I can see this only as bad faith on his/her part.

To say "assume good faith" in the context of "bad faith" - this I do not understand.

So what I'm doing is merely engaging in Socratic Dialogue kind of provocations. Don't you think this great Oxford alleged professor can handle it? Or do you really think he needs your protection from my questioning the mere use, and role, of the word "professor" which is associated with his/her identity?

Best regards to you, Person of Good Faith User:Banno, I am --Ludvikus 23:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

also

Note also this. This is getting a lot more unpleasant than I like. I've never experienced anything like it before, here. Dbuckner 12:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucaas Reverts without citations/sources the Mel Etitis version

By substantially changing the Philosophy article, but keeping the citations, there was no conformity to the citations. I've made the descriptions on the Phil. talk page, but Lucaas just wants to "talk" on my Talk page. Best regards, --Ludvikus 13:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Banno, please note that I have checked the history and there is no evidence that this is Mel's version. You may want to check for yourself. It is Ludvikus' version, who seems to have stayed up all night. They are both well past 3RV. Dbuckner 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for alterting me. To be honest, and I might as well be, I find Ludvikus ludicrous, self-contradictory, often deeply uncivil (and equally often deeply obscure), baselessly arrogant, and lacking in self-control, self-awareness, and understanding of philosophy. He and a few other editors have taken over Philosophy, which is a laughing stock; it and one or two other similar articles have often been cited in my hearing as evidence that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be taken seriously or used as a reliable resource. Although I find that depressing, I don't feel that there's anything that anyone can do; editors like Ludvikus are tirelessly logodiarrhoeic (somewhere between types 6 and 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart), and have no sense of or respect for Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. Even if I had the time and energy to commit myself full time to improving the article, they would frustrate that attempt. Just look at the article's history as soon as the protection was removed: rocket-powered hysterical editing, with edit-warring thrown in, all with the net result of... the usual mess.

Maybe (but not likely to be honest) I'll return to look at it in the Easter vacation, but I've too much teaching (and thus marking, etc.) to do during the term. I admire your ability to keep your cool in the midst of it all. I hope to keep contributing the odd philosophy-related article, but Philosophy itself I'll leave to others (and good luck to them).

(The suggestion that I'm using a sock-puppet to give myself two voices in the debate is a bit odd, given that I've withdrawn from the debate. If only it were the oddest thing that had been said. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis

Dear Banno,

Of all the other people who have been involved in any way with the Philosophy page, the most intelligent and coherent person is User:Mel Etitis.
However, he has been the most destructive of all put together.
He has succeeded in convincing several editors that he is a Prof. at Oxford University, as he appears to claim on his User page, where he also claims he has written a book in which he speeks with the voice of a woman, and that therefore he's often confused for one. That's all we know about this person. And I believe that all of this make you think that he is in fact a professor, and therefore value what he tells you over me.
You have been extremely unfair to me in reprimanding me while you permit this Mel to say all this suff about me personally without telling him off.
As you can see above, he refers to me as "types 6 and 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart)". I've never heard of this - but after looking it up it seems to me that he calls me "SHIT." I do not understanding how you can be so one sided?
I have an extremely strong ego, and I do not really care what he thinks of me.
However, he has written similar stuff about me, behind my back, and has succeeded in undermining my credibility. My formal education is in philosophy.
I urge you, for the sake of Misplaced Pages, to be even-handed.
You have not yet told me how I have offended this person which has caused you to reprimend me and threaten to have me locked out of Misplaced Pages.
I assume good faith on your part, Banno. I just think you are being extremely unfair by not telling him off for his foul description of me.
Since I've worked on Philosophy, he only made one significant contribution regarding Thales, and it was to denigrade him, with an opening remark regarding his nausea.
As I said before, I think you are biased in favor of this person because you have awarded him a Barnstar. So it must be very difficult for you to tell him off for the "shit" he says about me to you above.
Philosophy now is absolutely horrible as it is subotaged by one person, User:Lucidish, or some name like that.
Mel Etitis, again, is the most intelligent of all - except for me of course. However, I do not play his game of presenting my credentials. How do you know that I'm not a Professor at Columbia University?
I think this Mel Etitis must find me a threat to the high esteme he seems to have right now with you, and with other editors at Misplaced Pages.
The other "Professor" seems to have vanished - User:Peter J King.
Don't you find that strange - perhaps related?
Anyway, I still assume good faith with repect to you, but I still ask you to tell me what if is that you think I said was offensive against this Mel Etitis? Ludvikus 06:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do something

I can't really add anything to Mel's comments. Except that I am deeply fed up with this. I am reverting to the last coherent version, not mine, but one that at least makes sense. Meantime, can we work together to get something done? Otherwise I will do something really drastic. My patience is at an end. Dbuckner 08:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I've Banno, I've also just found this completely offensive remark here plus incoherent and vaguely threatening rants here. I repeat, as you are an administrator, can you get something done immediately about this. This has gone completely beyond the boundaries of what is remotely acceptable. Stop him leaving these disturbing comments on people's talk pages. It's not just me. Follow his edit trail and you see all sorts of people are affected, not just in philosophy either. See e.g. here. Best Dbuckner 09:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Received your message - yes, surely. Sorry for disruption to real life! Meantime, I believe there are a few things I can do that are within policy. See the talk page. Best Dbuckner 11:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on Ludvikus

Do you acknowledge that I have been the subject of personal attacks in relation to the Philosophy article? Simple question: Yes, or No?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the "yes"

The "yes" was most important to my assessment as to the degree of your objectivity. Everything else was your dressing on the cake. I hope you understand that I am not that ego involved here. And so I wish to share with you my impression that you are a descent fellow. And it's probably true that I'm new to Wiki. And if Mel has been around much longer, I can see how you would be inclined to favor him over me (don't assume I'm defensive on this). We are here only concerned with a particular issue. It is improving the Philosophy page. One thing I really love about Misplaced Pages is that it is the closest thing to Direct Democracy and Anarchy that exists (and an 'experiment in these). That means that you and I are equal, even though you have the power of an Administrator over me. I am not really intimidated by the threat of being locked out of Misplaced Pages. It's not like Sadam being hanged! And my Ego is extremely strong. I am utterly amazed how You can trivialize being called "shit" by someone. It shows that you are not as objective as you perhaps could be. Now Mel may very likely have contributed much to Misplaced Pages. But to Philosophy he has contributed - and according to you I can say so - "shit". How many times did I tell you that he began his one (and I think only) comment on the Talk page) with the description of himself as enduring "nausea". (I might add, a constructive way to participate on an acknowledged difficult page). Lest you misunderstand me, I'm not here addressing him as an issue. I'm concerned now with your role as an effective Administrator with regard to the Philosophy page. You have an obligation to Misplaced Pages - not to me personally. Assumne I really mean that! As much as you value Mel's contribution, you are, in my opinion, extremely unobjective in assessing his role in relation to that One page. I hope you assume good faith on my part as I spend my valuable time informing you of this. I do not know if you are going to misconstrue what I am telling you here as "a personal attack" on you. That, certainly, is not my intent. You are perfectly capable of appreciating the meaning of "bias", or "perjudice" - but it's very hard to look into one's own heart. It is my sincere belief that you are biased in his favor. I therefore offer you this advice. Examine carefully what he has contributed to the Philosophy page. On this I am an authority - not you. You find on my scale (which does not involve "shit") - I would not say Zero - but only because that's much to generous; I would say Minus 60%, or 70% (his shitty scale has 6 & 7). Notice, by the way, there no personal attack on him here - exactly the distinction you make regarding his use of "shit" in relation to me. I hope you have the capacity, and time, to follow my logic herein. My sincere best regards to you, personally because I do believe that your Heart is in the right place. Also, again, I have no ill will towards Mel. It was not I, but Neotica, who said there was "Suckerpottery" (whatever that word is). Also, what's you problem with (s)he - she's always better than shit (unless your gay - "not that there's anything wrong with it - Laughter? And "Professor" - that's User:Dbuckner's preoccupation, not mine. Also, "Credentialism" is also User:Noetica's expression, I just picked it up from her. So have a good time. Also, User:Rick Norwood is a descent fellow on the Philosophy page. Very truly yours, & Peace. --Ludvikus 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A "descent fellow" indeed!

If only you were able to "ascend" to his level; rather than forcing him to descend to yours!!129.94.6.28 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Let me just say that I do not find any fault with that would warrant a complain. I merely questioned some of your judgment with respect to my case. And you admit that you are prejudiced in Mel's favor, and wish to remain so - that's honest - and I respect your honesty. It's your previlege to be biased - as mine is to have you alter your error by a request. Regarding my Ego, you miss the point. I'm merely appropriatelyb communigating with you regarding Misplaced Pages acrivities - and you should assume good faith - that means if I say no ego involvent, take if on face value. The fact is that since I have given my time to improving the article, Mel has given up - done nothing. So here I am, a newcomer, he abandons the project, as you have also. But any, sometimes our contributions result in unforeseen consequences. Two (2) editors have arrived - and maybe the log-head will be busted. By the way, I'm just curious, User:Dbuckner is announcing, on the Talk pages of at least one newcomer, that I'm possibly going to be subjected to RtC - does that constitute a personal attack? I'm more curious, than worried. You confuse my interest in your view of me, to an Ego issue. Your role as Administrator has an effect on the Philosophy page. So I value what you think. Remember, I do not think of Philosophy as a particularly worthy activity that is to be defined by Rationality, which Mel, his "students", and perhaps you, believe. Now that you say you worked on the page - what's your view on the defining relation between Philosophy and Rationality? Best regards, --Ludvikus 23:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)