Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:55, 23 January 2007

• Known away dates at present: - weekends 26-28 January, 10-11 February.
• In the meantime, please leave any messages on this talk page to read on returning.
• Have a very good new year, whatever your version of a new year may be, and a healthy happy editorial 2007!

-- FT2

• Archived talk page comments: /Archive

Misplaced Pages IRC channel:

Services Link:

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

RFPC draft

A/guide: WP:SIR, Misplaced Pages:Canvassing Contribs tool:

NPOV Cite

"Misplaced Pages does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if NLP's claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both NLP's claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Misplaced Pages is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Misplaced Pages's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side." user:Jdavidb

Temp links related to RfA

• 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities (11 Nov 2004)
• Animal marriage (07 Jun 2006)
• Cultural and historical background of Jesus (02 Jun 2006)
• Empathy (30 Dec 2005)
• Hypoadrenia (22 Oct 2005)
• Judaism and Christianity (11 Oct 2005)
• Labrador Retriever (03 Jun 2006)
• Movement to impeach George W. Bush (14 Apr 2006)
• Mysticism (04 Feb 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (29 Oct 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (04 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (05 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (07 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (12 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (13 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (27 Nov 2005)
• -phil- (16 Mar 2006)
• Polyamory (04 Feb 2005)
• September 11, 2001 attacks (11 Dec 2005)
• Stimulation (14 Nov 2005)
• Stimulus (24 Oct 2005)
• Talk:Uses of torture in recent times (18 Dec 2004)
• Talk:Uses of torture in recent times (18 Dec 2004)
• Talk:Zoophilia (09 Dec 2004)
• User talk:Mushroom (12 May 2006)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for investigation (28 Apr 2005)
• Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (11 Nov 2004)
• Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (13 Nov 2004)
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods (06 Jun 2006)
• World Tribunal on Iraq (28 Apr 2005)
• Zoophilia (20 Oct 2005)
• Zoophilia (14 Dec 2005)
• Zoophilia (01 Jan 2006)
• Zoophilia (16 May 2006)

Temp save of working edits behind hidden comment section, view source to see

RfA withdrawn

I really respect your decision to withdraw. Make sure you clean up the page into this format, and remove the RfA from the main WP:RFA page.

Though I hadn't met you before today, it would be my honor to renominate you when you feel your edit summary usage has improved enough. Λυδαcιτγ 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. Good work, and your decision to withdraw will only make my support even stronger when you are next up. --Guinnog 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Camonica2.png

Could you please find a different source for Image:Camonica2.png. I don't believe the current source is entirely reliable. It looks more like a sloppy MS Paint job right now. An actuall museum would be a better source. --Phoenix Hacker 10:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR block

Regarding reversions made on January 5 2007 to Labrador Retriever

(above discussed by email with editor concerned. FT2 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I concur that you were reverting vandalism. You might want to consider semi-protection for the article. Block lifted. Request handled by: Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously... thank you for protecting the Labrador retriever section and for your additions. I've been fighting vandalism on that page for months. -Erikeltic

Global Warming Article

The oddest thing happened when I was reviewing the article. I scanned through the first few paragraphs and was immediately struck by an incredibly inappropriate and biased statement that had almost zero relation to the article. I can't remember the exact sentence but these words are burned into my mind: "hypotetical bullshit" and "don't believe John Kerry". I was stunned to see such a ridiculous, poorly executed and poorly spelled attempt to discredit the theory of global warming. I immediately created an account with Misplaced Pages so that I could register my objection to this bizarre transgression against the spirit of unbiased information. After logging on and reading the rules for discussing articles I went back to the global warming article to cite the inane statement. As you might have guessed it was no longer there. I am fairly certain that the statement in question came after the last line in the fourth paragraph: Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming.

I know that I saw those words. I know that they no longer appear for me whether I log in or not. I am reporting this in the hope that whatever is going on can be stopped.

Thanks, Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccgleason (talk • contribs) 08:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Global Warming Thanks

I love Misplaced Pages! Thanks for the thorough response. I am an English teacher at an inner city high school (Dorsey) in L.A. and I take immense comfort in recommending Misplaced Pages as a resource for my students to conduct research. I was alarmed at the nonsense Arnold 19 posted, but the processes you described are as much as one could hope for in this information age. I have ridden the Wiki-Wiki bus many times in Honolulu and have just now discovered the connection to Misplaced Pages; one more reason to feel good about this online encyclopedia. Again, thanks so much for the rapid and excellent discourse over my concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccgleason (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

(relates to this reply to this question. FT2 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're awesome

That it:).Nina Odell 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the exact same way - I can't stand ideological or copy messes. If you're also a professional masseuse with a decent car and a job, I might ask you to marry me:).Nina Odell 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You joined the neutrality project - I've been a member for a while. Check this out ]. That's not even the half of it. I specialize in editing atrocities for neutrality, among other things. Nina Odell 15:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're married already, aren't you. DANG IT. :) Nina Odell 15:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New Misplaced Pages article Covert Marriage. Nina Odell 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like to force people to read my user page, but I guess you're probably right...Are you sure someone didn't slip you a mickey and marry you? I would...but marriage is a construct anyhow. I think a ceremony is lovely, but a real marriage is built on an daily (even hourly) basis, and subject to constant change and revision. That's my two cents, anyhow. Nina Odell 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give you a chance to tweak your essay before I read it tonight. I'm off to work.:)NinaOdell | Talk 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job

Good job on Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. I would like to draw your attention to Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#"Biographies of living persons for deletion" (BLPfD) policy proposal and (See also: ). WAS 4.250 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Check it out

You're on my user page - which makes you famous!:).NinaOdell | Talk 01:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A wholesale wiki-wide promotion of Misplaced Pages Wikiprojects. Can you whip that up? Tonight please:). NinaOdell | Talk 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a background in marketing, but it doesn't seem to help much...*sigh*...NinaOdell | Talk 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please and thank you - both please!NinaOdell | Talk 02:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not working right on your talk page - see my sand box...sigh...NinaOdell | Talk 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not if you can't sit at the computer!NinaOdell | Talk 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A server would crash with the number of members on THAT page;0.NinaOdell | Talk 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dudley.jpg

I reverted the image to the last version which had Dudley Manlove, removed the image from the Labrador Retriever article since that was intended to be the dog version, and explained the situation to the person who uploaded the copyrighted image and added it to the Lab article. BigNate37_(T) 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am impressed ...

... by your work @ Misplaced Pages. I know we do not do enough of this in these wild frontiers, but here you have my appreciation for a good job well done consistently over time. Would you be interested to be nominated for the mop and the bucket? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Farmers Insurance article

I added a "Plaudits" section to counterbalance the "Criticism" selections. I did my darndest to keep NPOV, but would be grateful if you could give it a quick review to ensure that I kept my crayon inside the lines. I'm kinda new at this...Buzzards39 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Farmers Insurance pt. 2

Thanks for looking. I agree with the way you have changed the section from good vs. evil to varying opinions from third parties. As I did disclose previously on Syrthiss's talk page when he was making some edits, I am an insurance agent who does sell Farmers products, though I am not an employee of Farmers or its affilliates, etc... When I first looked at the page a week or so ago, there was a rather strident anti-Farmers screed posted by "Router", who I believe, though I cannot prove, is the owner of a Farmers Gripe site. I deleted the paragraph where he called Farmers the "Worst Insurance company in the USA", while leaving his examples, though I did consider them to be misleading. After a short revert war, another editor added the positive stuff that you deleted a day or two ago. Long story short, I was just trying to put some balance in there, realizing that an Insurance company will not always be in the right. If others are content with the article as written, so am I. You can see my comments on the article discussion page, as well as the talk pages of Router and Syrthiss. Again, thanks for your help. Buzzards39 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination

I have a question about your RfA

Why did you put those boxes around your answers to the questions? And how?--CJ King 04:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Readability, to make it easy for others. And it's just a table with a solid border. Check out Help:Table for how to use tables in Misplaced Pages, it took me some time but they're very useful to know how. The option to set a style (including border style) is easy to do. The command looks like this:

style="border:1px solid black" or if you want a background it might be: style="border:4 px dotted #603322; background-color:blue"

The thickness of the border in pixels (px), the style of the border (dotted, solid) and the color of the border (standard HTML colors such as black, blue, darkgrey, or RGB based such as #603322) are all things you define. The code for a simple section of text with a box round it might be:

{| style="border:1px black solid"
| usual text in a table
* list
* list
more text
|}

and that will look like this:

usual text in a table list list more text

You can indent by adding a colon before the initial {| if you like - but no space between ::: and {| or else the markup won't work.

Hope that helps! Good luck! FT2 07:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Catching up

• Oh, I'm not bad. In college now. It's so weird to think that I edited WP back in high school, and that I'm still (sort of) at it. How 'bout you? I seriously would have thought you'd have been an admin by now. (Although it's kind of cool that I get to vote in your RFA ^_^) ♠PMC♠ 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

penchant for cleanup

Hi, I saw your userpage comment that you enjoy writing intros to contentious articles, and I thought maybe you'd like to have a stab at Philosophy, which is in the middle of a bit of a kurfuffle. (I'm just observing from the sidelines, not involved). Just a thought, if you have any spare time (ha!) and interest. :) —Quiddity 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a list of external examples and past diff examples in this thread, Talk:Philosophy#Interlude.

The present problem seems to be Ludvikus trying to take over, and he's on course for an RfC for editwarring and personal attacks if he keeps it up. It might be more complex than that? Sorry it's not much to go on.

Based on the history page: Lucidish, Banno, Dbuckner, and Rick Norwood are longtime contributors there. Lucidish started the article itself. —Quiddity 01:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good :) —Quiddity 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Quiddity's summary. I've worked with Lucidish (Ben Nelson), Banno, and Norwood over many years to defend this article. Don't forget also Mel Etitis who is a distinguished Oxford philosopher. There were disagreements before but nothing like this. The problem is not one but two difficult editors who arrived at the same time. Ludvikus is, as the man says, heading for an RfC. Lucaas is not so aggressive, but has a poor grasp of English, combined with a belief that he knows everything about everything. If you could help, much appreciated. Mel gave a very good summary of the problem, (why Philosophers don't edit the Philosophy page) - I have a link to it on my user page. Best Dbuckner 14:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One further point - there is less disagreement between professional philosophers over the basic definition than you would think. There is a page Definition of philosophy which summarises what different philosophers have said on various key points, all of which should be somewhere in the introduction, in my view. Dbuckner 14:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More on Philosophy

Good work! Best of luck to you. It's good to have you on board.

From what I've read you wrote so far, things can only get better.

Sincerely, --Ludvikus 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dudley (dog)

Just a message to let you know that I redirected the article Dudley (dog) that you nominated for deletion, but which resulted in a no consensus, to Labrador Retriever. For the reasons, see the AfD discussion and Talk:Dudley (dog). Hopefully your concerns are addressed this way. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Hello. You are handling this very well. You made two points in the philosophy page that I would like to answer here, as the talk page is cluttered enough as it is.

1. You say "As I understand it, there will be two kinds of sources that are helpful: notable philosophers who gave their own opinions, and notable comentators, academics and researchers (writers on philosophy etc) who summarized what the main threads in various debates were, and also often added their own views and interpretations as specialists/experts of various standings. Both are potentially useful sources. Has anyone suggested a good reason to completely exclude either?"

I have one reservation about the former approach, which is that when notable philosophers attempt to say something about philosophy in their philosophical work proper (as opposed to introductions for beginners, which many notable philosophers never wrote), they say things which are profound, difficult, cryptic, controversial, slanted to their own view &c. Thus Socrates says philosophy is like being a midwife. Kant says it is like milking a he-goat with a sieve. Wittgenstein says it is like getting a fly out of a fly-bottle. I can quote you many other things like that. The difficulty here is that such remarks require interpretation, and I read WP:OR as specifically warning against any source that requires interpretation. Thus I prefer the rather dull and prosaic definitions you find in sources by authoritative writers, like Quinton or Ayer or others, aimed at a beginner audience. Which is what WP should be.

2. You also asked for a brief flavour of what the dispute is about. Easy. The whole controversy is about whether the method of philosophy should be characterised is rational, logical, critical &c. It's odd, because all professionally trained philosophers agree at least on that (thought on not much else). Yet the debate is raging around that. It's mostly due to the fact that it is very much between professionally trained philosophers, and people who are not.

Hope that helps. Dbuckner 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Congratulations! --Guinnog 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You're now an admin, so have fun using the new tools to help the project keep improving. Use them conservatively, especially at first, and re-read the policies as necessary. Don't hesistate to ask for help, and dig in to help out with the backlogs! - Again, congrats. - Taxman 16:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done! If you need any help with your shiny new admin tools then please don't hesitate to ask. Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Even though I opposed your nomination, I hope that the issues raised in the process help you in your decision process, and that you prove me wrong and justify the community's trust in you. -- Avi 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, too. Have fun with your new responsibilities! :-) --Conti|✉ 18:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My first edits post-RfA will be as follows:

1. This post (if I don't mention this one, somebody else will). Done.
   1. Fix the darn mistyped wikilinks in the above :P (okay, add that one in, too) Done.
2. If it's not clear already, clarify in the article I wrote a few weeks back, Misplaced Pages:Editorial oversight and control, that admins don't have a privileged voice in discussion, beyond certain limited powers used to ensure discussions run smoothly. Done.
3. Sign up for Misplaced Pages:Admins willing to make difficult blocks (if anyone actually asks for help on this, I'll have to get advice in some cases for starters , but like I said, its a point of principle that people aren't in fear of doing the Right Thing, so count me in). Done.
4. Watchlist the 'suspected socks' page, again as I commited to do to the RfA participants.
5. Thank individually each of those who gave 'oppose' and 'neutral' votes, for their honesty, and see if any follow-up is of use.
6. Thank individually each of those who were supportive and showed trust, and undertake to try and continue to live up to their standards.
7. Reread all the things I didn't need to know the minutae of, until now.
8. Carry on with Philosophy, and a few other articles I'm working on, and hope they go smoothly.

A brief generic "thank you" first for the trust... and now I'm off to grab a coffee. May we all in our own ways, find ourselves Doing the Right Thing and support each other. FT2 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was an interesting RfA, wasn't it? Congrats on the successful nomination and may you wield the mop and bucket with equanimity, grace, and humility.

If you want to get some great tools to assist you with the janitorial aspects of adminship, you can check my User:Jossi/monobook.js. I can help you customize it if you need. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles update:

During the RfA I significantly updated or worked on the following articles. However I did not update my user page "list of articles", or list them here, in order to prevent the appearance of self-promotion. Now the RfA is over: Linux distribution ... Cheddar Gorge and Caves ... Philosophy (editor dispute) ... Solid state disk / Solid state drive (merge) ... Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (software) ... Personhood ... Misplaced Pages:Appealing a block ... Watch ... Farmers Insurance Group (COI) ... WP:3RR ... Nuisance.

FT2 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done from me too. Good luck with the mop. The Rambling Man 19:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

May I add my congratulations. Thanks also for your explanation and apology, though I see that you still have not said on Talk:Tie and tease that you will not make it a redirect again. I had not noticed that you made Ruined orgasm into a redirect, but I shall revert it. I do hope that you can take away two lessons: don't make major alterations when you aren't 100% awake, and don't edit in areas you don't understand. Best of luck as an admin, and if I can help you with the benefit of my experience as an admin on Wipipedia, I shall be delighted.--Taxwoman 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus

I'm afraid your attempt to put things right on the Philosophy page was hopelessly optimistic. Ludvikus is completely out of control. I am simply reverting everything he edits, and will continue until he is permanently banned. Dbuckner 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For a sample of this drivel, see my comments here. Dbuckner 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Editorial oversight and control

I just read this which you largely wrote yourself. It seems a fine piece of work. Well done. --Guinnog 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Query

I'll write ya a bit later tonight ok. :) --Woohookitty 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. First of all, are you sure you have admin access? I don't see you listed as an admin. Now even if you don't have admin access, you can mediate disputes. In fact, some people like it better when non-admins mediate. Advantages for both cases.

Anyway, the main thing is to try to keep as neutral as you can. And if you have personal feelings about the issues, try to keep them under wraps. Think of yourself as a referee or an umpire or a judge. You are non-partial and have no official position on any content issues. You are just there to keep people in check and to get people to work together. Now, don't get intimidated by those who say "well you are favoring the other side!". Remember NLP. It wasn't that the mentors favored the pro-NLP side. They were just much easier to deal with and didn't violate rules nearly as often as the anti-NLP side.

As for protecting pages. Well. It's a judgment call. If you feel as though things are getting out of hand, then ask for protection or if you have the power, protect the page yourself. What does "out of hand" mean? This is a good example. Page was being edited rather quietly and not that often and then BAM! Lots of reverts and name calling and hostility. That's when it was time to protect. The number of edits aren't really what you go by. In fact, an article with alot of interest (like philosophy) is going to be heavily edited. What you by is what the edits are and in what attitude the edits are being made in. The red flag for me personally is when people are discussing things in edit summaries but not on the talk page as in that example I gave you. That's a good indicator that it's time to protect the page, let people cool off and see if you can get them to talk on the talk page.

As for editing protected pages, don't do it. :) Unless. It's a non-controversial edit or it's something that a consensus has been gotten on. Otherwise, as soon as you edit a protected page or declare an edit by an involved party "vandalism" and revert it while the page is protected, you make people think that you are biased even if you aren't. It's just not a good idea.

Well that's all I have for now. If you need any other help, feel free to ask. I really appreciate that you came to me. I'm not a bragging type but I do have almost 2 years experience as an admin so I've been around the block a few times. So. Any questions, ask. Like I said, if you don't have admin powers, you can still do just fine. You'll just need to ask me or another admin to do whatever it is you need to do. My main thing? Stay neutral. Just think of yourself as a referee and not a player. --Woohookitty 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll copy your response in here and then respond. Easier.

* If I'm helping with a dispute, as opposed to a "stake" in the article, does that make me "involved" for PPRO and BP purposes?

• • Depends on who you ask. :) To me, if you are actively involved in mediating something, it is actually a responsibility of yours to block and protect when necessary. As someone with admin access, you are essentially a cop. You would only be considered involved if you had edited the article in the past. Are there others who think differently? Yes. But I think the general consensus would be that you are acting neutral and therefore, should be able to block and protect without problems.

* If I'm clearly there just to help it flow better in response to a problem, am I at risk of being hauled over coals if I take (appropriate) action after warning or making the problem clear, on protection (edit war) or blocks (if one party is visibly persistent with personal attacks or other policy breaches), etc?

• • Raked over the coals by whom? Are you referring to the users involved in the situation or other admins? In the case of users involved, yes. You will always have users who say you are biased or who will complain when you do blocks. As for other admins, as long as you keep the blocks appropriate and the protection time appropriate, you should be ok. What's an appropriate block? Well the general consensus is 12 or 24 hours for a first offense. It depends on how severe it is. Then after that, I myself double. So 48 hours and then 96, etc. But again it's up to you. If it's a user who has been behaving and suddenly goes off the deep end, a short block is ok. But remember. Before you do ANY blocks, the users need to be warned once and probably twice. Gotta have a long leash. This isn't like NLP where there was no leash.

* If I'm already involved with an article, and a problem blows up (some heavy duty POV editor arrives on the scene and such), wheres the line where you would personally say "I'm too involved, I won't block or protect even if the behavior or edit war is outrageous, I'll post on WP:ANI instead"? * If a banned/blocked editor that I was involved with (such as our sock-vandal from last year) appears to come back, would you say that blocking the new sock was appropriate, or should I ask someone else to because I was previously involved in that dispute before the block/ban?

• • I'll handle these 2 at once. If it's someone you've dealt with before, yes, go to AN/I or AN. Absolutely. As for being too involved, if you stay neutral, you should be ok. But you know, if you aren't sure about a decision or are debating what to do, yes, definitely go to AN or AN/I. Sometimes guidance and support from others is helpful. --Woohookitty 09:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I think you get the gist of it. If you are there as a neutral party by agreement of a consensus of people involved, then you are considered uninvolved yourself. As for the NLP socks, if they do appear, I would suggest sending it to AN/I or AN or maybe request a checkuser. I wouldn't recommending blocking them on your own. That could lead to problems. Honestly, you could bring them to my attention as well. I did alot of work on NLP but I'm still a neutral party on it. --Woohookitty 09:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus

There are actually two problem editors on this page, but the other one (Lucaas) is better behaved, so I shall stick to the one called Ludvikus here. The problem is that

• The philosophy article needs to cover 2,500 years of philosophical history in a tight, concise way, with relevant links to more detailed articles. Ludvikus persists on posting long rambles about pet subjects (mostly OR), such as McCarthyism.

• The reverts have mostly been reverts by other users, pointing out that, while new contributions need discussion, deletion of contributions made without any consensus can be deleted without discussion

• Ludvikus is obsessive (follow his edit trail) making dozens or even hundreds of edits a day, works through the night and is utterly tireless.

• He will discuss changes, but in a prolix and unproductive way that makes cooperation tiresome.

• His changes are unsourced. Moreover they are mostly disconnected stream-of-consciousness ranting in broken English, and are generally peculiar in some way.

The Bristol Stool Scale comment by an admin is splendid, and sums the problem up perfectly. Dbuckner 09:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And here is a comment by another user that sums it up well. Dbuckner 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

PS The user has now been blocked for 48 hours. That solves the problem for 48 hours, at least. Dbuckner 12:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconding DBuckers comments

I have to support DBuckners comments here. I have a laypersons background in philosophy, but I am a practicing, licensed psychiatrist. Trace my IP address, and you will find my office and medical license verified. DBuckner is entirely correct in what he says. This editor Ludvikus is entirely out of control, and I am telling you, unless some action is taken to deal with this, it will go on indefinitely, and ruin the effort of collaboration in the philosophy section. Richiar 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for the headers - FT2

Go for it. :) There'll be a few things you'll need to change (mainly the status template, if you want to keep that). Let me know if there's anything confusing in there. Luna Santin 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SD

what is "deleted under A"? Any links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.36.247 (talk • contribs)

replied, see User talk:125.22.36.247

congratulations

Congratulations! For what it is worth, my main piece of advice is: generally, do not act any different now than you did six months or a year ago. Administrators have certain powers but I prefer to see them as comparable to the powers a housecleaner or garbagemen have, rather than a cop or judge - they enable us to help out with countless meaintenance jobs (e.g. our version of cleaning up grafitti). It is true that among these are powers to block users or protect pages, but I have made it a rule of mine (which I admit, with regret, that I do not always live up to) never to use these powers based on my own judgement - i.e. I will only use them when Misplaced Pages policy makes it an unquestionable and thus practically automatic act, or when there is such a strong consensus that my act is simply executing what is clearly the will of the community.

It is true that you may be able to help mediate a dispute effectively, or resolve one, or guide the improvement of an article. But in virtually all of these cases (in my experience) your ability has nothing to do with your being an administrator, just with your experience, knowledge of the policies, and good sense - i.e. virtues you had long before you became an adminisrator, and virtues shared by many non-administrators. It is the posession of these virtues that is important and merits respect, and they have nothing to do with being an administrator as such. In other words, someone who isn't an administrator but who is experience, knows the policies, and has good judgement is just as (and sometimes more) likely to improve a situation as I can, despite the fact I have been an admin for a few years.

I hope you don't mind some more advice (and needless to day, this is all just my opinion), but I can finish up by giving you practically all the advice I could possibly give anyone in just a few more sentences. One: Avoid wikilawyering whenever possible. Two: Almost all conflicts can be resolved by (1) patience (willing to let things play out over a few days or weeks) and (2) careful attention to our core policies, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. Assume people act on good faith and give people the benefit of the doubt as long as they are not violating these policies; if someone clearly violates them gently encourage them to read them carefully but don't hesitate to revert if that is what is necessary to comply with the policies. Three: remember, always remember, that talk pages are for improving articles. If someone starts using a talk page as a soap box or platform for long, tangential discussions, (1) do not get sucked in (I know, this is hard to avoid!) and (2) discourage the contributor from misusing the talk page. To echo what I wrote above, I would share this advice with any editor and I do not think one needs to be an administrator to follow this advice and many great editors who are not administrators follow these principles all the time. Any time I see an editor who follows these principles and who is criticizing something I did, I really do try to step back and reconsider whatever it is I have done - even if that person is not an admin, and I am.

Anyway, best of luck! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Hi FT2, remember when closing AfDs to put the header ABOVE the section header, and not below, as it affects the bot making it think they are still open! Cheers. --Majorly (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter King

I see from his talk page (User talk:Peter J King) that you haven't invited Peter. He is the most competent philosopher on the WP. As you can see from his talk page, he is very depressed about the state of the article, and will need some persuasion to be involved, but would be worth it. I'll say a few things about how your approach seems to be working wonders &c, if that helps. Actually, not having Ludvikus for 48 hours has helped as well. However, we will have him back tomorrow so we will have to see how it goes. Best. Dbuckner 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But see my note on Banno's page after finding vandalism elsewhere. There really is no place for the professionally trained in Misplaced Pages. Really isn't. Dbuckner 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions on Logic

This is probably better for your talk page.

• The concept of category is fundamental to Aristotle's thinking, to much of the thought of the Middle Ages. Aristotle says that every kind of thing falls into one of 10 categories. Some reductionist logicians, especially Ockham, disagreed with this, and argued that there are fewer categories (substance, predicate and relation from memory). Others disagreed. I don't understand your remark about this connecting somehow with 'rhetoric'. Rhetoric is generally regarded as 'cheap tricks' for winning arguments, not to be confused with 'logic'. On the West-East thing – I don't understand what you mean by 'nondual'. Generally, to those who argue that Eastern philosophy is really very different from 'Western', I say, put it all in a different article, and for goodness sake give it a respectable, careful treatment. On the other hand, if it really is similar, reference appropriate sources.

• On the development of logic, this is a huge subject (and a specialist area of mine). Roughly, most of it all came from Aristotle, though some important parts contributed by the Stoics. It was developed and formalised extensively in the Middle Ages, but the Aristotelian and Stoic bits were never properly integrated. The integration was by Frege, Peirce and others, who transformed it into what we have now. The mathematicians, as far as I know, never contributed much until Frege. Hope that helps.

Dbuckner 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the material on 'nondual'. Can I dare to say this is not philosophy, as I understand it? Dbuckner 14:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Edgeplay

You might find something in these links:

, , ,

There really needs to be a health warning on edgeplay, if this can be done without triggering a torrent of "WP is not a How to guide" responses. Please come back if this isn't enough. --Taxwoman 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)