User talk:Lacatosias/Archive2

Phenomenalism

Nice rewrite... It was terribly lacking before, so good work :) Averisk

Thank you. The main problem with the previous version, IMO, was that is was not very clear on the concept of phenomenalism in the lead section, the relationhip with other ideas like bundle theory, and it completely lacked references. It wasn't so much a question of POV.

It's important to point out the defects of a philosphical position because it clarifies the substance of the idea itself and also provides important historical information (if the criticims are referenced, that is, otherwise it is obviously original research). Having said that, if anyone still thinks the article is POV, they should just find some reference replied to the main objections that are listed). I honestly couldn't find anything on short notice (phenomenalism is simply not a very popular thesis these days and most sources just cite the objections). --Lacatosias 08:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Popper

Hi, I see you finally moved your discussions to archive. Well, lets be diplomatic now, yes, your reformulation says basically the same thing I said. But no, it was not a translation, it would be pointless to read Taylor in a language different from the original, given the original language used by him is English (I am not sure if he ever wrote anything in French, taking into account he is Canadian). Maybe I did allowed for a confusion in the last part of the sentence, when I included direct speech (in present between inverted commas), when the rest of the literal transcription was in reported speech. There's an online (English of course) version of the essay here [1]. Cheers YoungSpinoza 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope it's not really a literal transciption either, since that would be copyvio!! Be careful. (;--Lacatosias 18:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..now that I look at it, there are several much odder wordings on that page that need correction--Lacatosias 19:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)!!

Leib-Seele Problem

Hi there! I appreciate your initiative to rewrite the POM article. About that diagram, I had seen it there on the German wiki, but it's too small, don't you think? It's a lot of cramped text which will be impossible to read in thumb size and hard to read even in the original size. Some words are utterly unintelligible. If we could get a bigger version of it, that'd be great. Let me know. -- Kripkenstein _{τ κ}

Look what I found :) [2] I'll get on it. -- Kripkenstein _{τ κ}

What, what happened? Some te--Lacatosias 17:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)xt just showed up while I was typing?--Lacatosias 17:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely lost. Isn't that the one I just uploaded??--Lacatosias 17:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The version you uploaded was 800x600. -- Kripkenstein _{τ κ}

So where'd the other one come from?--Lacatosias 17:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just noticed something odd. I went to save the original image (which actually IS 3000x whatever) and it automatically changes to 800x600. Well, I'll let you deal with it. I wonder why that is the case though.

That IS odd! Well, I just started working on it and will be a lot of work, but it's going to be a great image to add to the article, doubtlessly! -- Kripkenstein _{τ κ}

Great. Thank you!!--Lacatosias 17:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Curly braces

Italian keyboards do not have curly braces. I must copy and paste beginining and ending braces for every single reference or for HTML stuff. What TORTURE!!! Is there any remedy for this?--Lacatosias 16:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

philosophy of mind

Hi ,I noticed you erased the article and substitued it as a link ,while MERGING the two. This is a big step in wiki. Could you please give a short summary of the merging prosees( hopefulyl nothing was left behind) ,the new article shoudl contain all of the information in both previous ones. thanks.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been done on several previous occasions: dualism (philosophy of mind) is one example. I think if you look carefully over the new version you will notice that there is substantially more information and that it is much better presented than that which was their before. In fact, this article is based on the Featured Article version from the German wikipedia. I will putting it up for FA consideration as soon as I get the chance. I'm fairly certain that all of the members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy of Mind will back me up on this, as will anyone with any real educational background and training in the field in question.--Lacatosias 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But what the heck am I talking about!! If you really wish to, just go ahead and revert to the previous version. --Lacatosias 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your polit reply ,I concur with this edit. Nice work ! I'd gladlly join this project officially. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 12:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Anybody's welcome to join any of the projects. --Lacatosias 13:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is plain absurd. Lacatosias is the main editor of philosophy of mind articles in the English wikipedia, it's that simple. His work is relentless and his move on merging the articles is based on the German wiki, where the best philosophy of mind articles are. It's obvious he didn't leave anything relevant behind from the previous, horrible version of the philosophy of mind article. -- Kripkenstein _{τ κ}

Braces

You must push <Alt Gr> + <SHIFT> + <[> or <]> keys (cioè <è> and <+> keys). Try and let me know. It's easy after the first time. In exchange I could ask you revision for Armistice with Italy article: my English is bad. Ciaoooo!!! [[--Lacatosias 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)User:Attilios|Attilios]]

Grazie Attilio!! --Lacatosias

Ok, there was some edit conflict causing some confusion. Of course I will revise your article as soon as I get the chance {{}*}ééé{{{{}}}} Hey, it works!! Great{{{{{}}}}--Lacatosias 17:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sono pienamente d'accordo. La Wikipedia Italiana probabilmente ha poco senso nel mondo di oggi, e specie su Internet. Alla prossima. Attilios

Mamma mia!! Che schifo avevo scritto?!?!? Grazie dell'ottimo lavoro!Attilios

LOL (laugh out loud). Non preoccuparti, il tuo inglese, benché ovviamente imperfetto, é comunque probabilmente meglio del mio italiano!! Non é facile scivere un intero articolo in una seconda lingua. In ogni caso, prego. --Lacatosias 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Populo-pedia

My disillusionment with the Populo-pedia grows by the day ( see Sungsu Kim).--Lacatosias 09:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Kent Bach

How did you guess I was new at this?????? This is the first time I've created an article that is part of a project (I think you guessed!). I just added the wine link as I wanted to give the article some content and I must admit I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for sorting this out - I find the only way I learn is if I'm bold and then some kind editor sorts it out and shows me how it should be done. Sophia^TalkTCF 10:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done on the Kent Bach article - I was only just beginning to research him so you saved me a ton of work. I'll admit I didn't even know who he was when I started out but I guessed I'd never learn if I didn't look. He sounds an interesting guy - which of his books would you recommend to a beginner in the subject? Sophia^TalkTCF 14:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal Philosophy

Er... where did you put the featured western articles? I can only find Portal:Philosophy/Featured_eastern_articles/10,2006 but not the western counterpart. -- infinity0 20:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Made the portal all work out :D See the relevant sections on the Talk:Philosophy page. -- infinity0 18:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this afternoon, but was too busy too send a comment. Good work!! We should now have up to about week 40 for the featured articles. I'll add some featured philosophers to the queue when I get the chance. The portal is also a little bit less cluttered now. --Lacatosias 19:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

References/notes on POM article

Just would like to let you know that the "Jackson, Frank" reference seems to be broken (when you click to go up it doesn't). Also, if you find yourself with a lot of free time one day, you might like the kind of reference/footnote system in articles like Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (it looks much better in my opinion). Great job on the article, by the way. --Kripkenstein 01:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on Jackson referecne. I was planning on changing the reference format to the kind you are referring to. It not only looks better, but it also has the adavantage that you don't have to repeat the same reference two or three times, the numbers always match up, etc.. However, I put so much damned work into the references the way they are (cutting and pasting curly braces one after the other before I learned how to get curly braces on an Italian keyboard) that almost feel guilty to change the whole thing now. But I (or perhaps someone else) will surely get around to it at some point. It's becoming the standard soon apparently.--Lacatosias 08:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I will go ahead and change to the new format. The current one is kind of arcane and confusing and may actually dissuade other people from trying to edit/improve the article. This is good in one sense (stability) but bad in another (articles can always use some fresh perspective and revision).--Lacatosias 09:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. What else now?? (; --Lacatosias 10:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Requesting short translation

I'm working on translating a biography from Italian to English, in order to write a featured article. If possible, can you please translate just this paragraph:

Tratto dall'amore delle cose antiche, egli dava alacremente opera allo studio della epigrafia e dell'architettonica: radunò a questo modo un tesoro di antiche lapidi, delle quali egli ne cita di Como, Ravenna, Rieti, Foligno, Perugia e Roma (4); in Pisa, essendo tuttora scolare, ed in altre città d'Italia vide ed esaminò sepolcri e sarcofagi, e se ne valse per combattere una opinione, universale a quei tempi ed ora soltanto confutata dai dotti moderni, dico della esistenza de'giganti ne'secoli antichi; quest'erano le basi ch'egli metteva al suo trattato de'sepolcri (5). Nè meno travagliavasi intorno alla retta intelligenza dei libri di giurisprudenza romana, e per la spiegazione felicemente data di un luogo delle Pandette, narra egli stesso averlo il Robortello abbracciato e baciato (1). In Pisa ottenne la laurea dottorale probabilmente nel i 546, affermandoci egli stesso che due anni dopo erasi recato in patria (2); che questa gita poi fosse del 1548 io l'argomento dall'essere egli stato inviato da'suoi conterranei al Duca Cosimo, locchè accadde appunto in quell'anno (3).

Thanks for your help :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 04:47

Hey, friend.

I suspect this debate might be of interest to you. KSchutte 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah hah!! That looks like a very relevent forum indeed. Thank you for the link. --Lacatosias 18:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation

I am sorry for not identifying the article to everyone. It wasn't any sort of test. As I said in my original message, it was a biography that I wanted to translate in order to write a featured article. This biography is the only modern biography on Girolamo Maggi. I knew I couldn't ask one person to translate 40 pages, so I thought I could ask a lot of people to translate little bits, and then try to piece it together on my own. Please try to assume good faith in the future. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 16:31

I was not assuming anything. The comment about "testing" was intended as a joke. 40 pages, eh? I would suggest giving me a copy of the biography, then I will translate the whole thing in about a week and write the article. Good luck to you.--Lacatosias 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The entire article is online at wikisource. From asking all these people, I now have about 1/4 of the article translated, and have started adding content to Girolamo Maggi. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 20:44

Philosphy of the mind

I am sorry I'm not being much use, I just find it difficult to ask any meaningful questions. I really have never read any philosophy before. Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you have been very helpful already. Now I will definitely get some input though, as it is either ruthlesslesly savaged or survives the Darwinian struggle though the FAC process.--Lacatosias 11:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's always a fascinating and valuable learning process anyway. --Lacatosias 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blackburn

Please do not touch the Blackburn quote on the Philosophy page. Lucidish 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries. The Oxford Dictionary was written by Blackburn, so nod, they're the same. It needs to stay in, or else it'll be POV. If pruning is required, then short of a paraphrase of the quote (which already has an ellipsis IIRC) we'll have to scrap the entire discussion of philosophy's relation to science. Lucidish 17:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would have liked to include in such an article an entire section dedicated to the topic of science's relation with philosophy. I think it's one of the questions that puzzles people the most about the whole business of modern philosophy. A common opinion (which I'm often tempted to share myself!!) is that philosophers just pointlessly speculate about problems and puzzles which scientists will eventually resolve. But, whatever the case, I won't be pruning anything for the time being. I was just pointing out a general defect of that article, IMO. --Lacatosias 18:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I take Blackburn's view, which is why I insist upon its inclusion if the topic is to be covered. I take the view that all good scientists are philosophers. Indeed, as the sciences become more and more dependent upon inferences due to lack of direct evidence, their work becomes loaded with more puzzles of logic and reasoning than with the trials and tribulations of data collection; and the former is really quite essential to (and typical of) philosophy. Lucidish 18:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course this is an important view. My own view is somewhat simialr and can be summarized in Einstein's famous aphorism "Science without philosophy is arid; philosophy without science is meanignless." I wouldn't say so much that good scientists must be philosphers (I know too many good scientists who no absolutely nothing about philosophy and it doesn't make them any the less good scientists), but great theoretical scientists (Borh and Einstein, e.g.) must consider the conceptual and epistemological implications of their work. More importantly, I think that good philosphers must know a great deal about science before formulating theories of time, for example. But this view is of course very controversial for philosphers of non-analatyic traditions. This is why hate such broad articles.--Lacatosias 11:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't get compliments like that from the people in my department (that's how it goes with grad school, I guess), so I really appreciate that. I'll go have a look at Philosophy of Mind as soon as I can get to it (probably Monday). KSchutte 03:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Compliments at universities?? No, of course not. It's rarely happened to me either. Well, once or twice perhaps, but generally it's cut-throat slash-and- burn all-out universal war of all against all competition. I think we can be a little more polite and civil in this, at least theoretically, more collaborative type of situation of each person doing his or her best to voluntarily (key word to keep in mind) help improve the quality of a free and universal encyclopedia. After all, none of us has any moral or financial obligations to go around correct typos, spelling errors, factual discrepancies,archiving talk pages, deleting improper nonsense and so on. Yet there are a large number of people who do this willingly and diligently. These people deserve out respect and appreciation. Others make substantive contributions in areas that I don't really know enough about (even within philosophy) and

I learn somthing from them. Occasionally, someone will learn something from my contributions. This is the best outcome that can be hope for for everyone involved. --Lacatosias 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I thought about adding the material myself as I commented there. If I find myself with enough time and inspiration, be sure that I will. --Kripkenstein 14:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Ebohr2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ebohr2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Functionalism

Thank you for spotting the error. I don't know what the heck was going though my head when I wrote that wacked-out sentence fragment.

Hey no problem. I also kindly thank you for much of its content. -- O process 01:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

De re-de dicto distinction

Hi Lacatosias. Thanks for making distinct the de re and de dicto sentences in Epistemology. I still have a use-mention distinction concern, though. The current version has phrases like the following:

S believes that it is true that P.

I was under the impression that "P" is the name of a proposition, as opposed to the words that might state that proposition. If so, the above phrase is not gramatically correct, since "P" is a noun and not a clause.

In case the above concern is not clear, I will elaborate. In my reading, "P" above may represent the proposition that epistemology is a science. The following sentences are gramatically correct and, ignoring complications of de re and de dicto distinction, they logically equivalent:

• S believes that it is true that epistemology is a science.
• S believes that proposition P is true.
• S believes that epistemology is a science.
• S believes P.

Note, in my reading, P is a proposition, so the following are not gramatically correct:

S believes that the first proposition.

S believes that P.

S believes that it is true that the first proposition.

S believes that it is true that P.

Instead of using a sentence with the proposition named P, perhaps the article is actually discussing forms of sentences by implicitely declaring a meta-sentence variable "[P]" to represent not a proposition but instead the words of a proposition, e.g. the words "epistemology is a science". Doing so makes the following two meta-sentences equivalent:

S believes that it is true that epistemology is a science.

S believes that it is true that [P].

Perhaps it is just a quirk of mine, and feel free to tell me if you think that's the case, but if the article is using "P" in that way, I am uncomfortable with the implicit nature of the article's use of P as a meta-sentence variable. I hope the article can be written in a simple style by using named propositions. What are your thoughts? The Rod (☎ Smith) 23:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You are actually touching now, if I understood correctly, on some very profound and unresolved issues concerning the nature of the relation(or non-relationship, as some would have it) between the Subject and the complement in propositional attitide reports. Some take them as two-place relations between individuals and propositions, others as two- place relations between individual and sentences, others as three-place relations (see Jerry Fodor) between individuals, sentences and propositions in a language of thought, yet others think that there is a one-place relation (!!)betwen and individual and an extended verb-phrase, i.e. the sentence:

S beleives that epistemology is true == S believes- that-epistemology-is-false.

The accepted usage, in any case, it to disregard the question of whether the complement is a prop. or a sentence by assuming that the complement P represents a sentence which may or may not express a proposition. Since P is assumed to be a meta-sentence variable, in the sense that it does indeed stand in for the sentence "epistemology is true" or whatever else S beleives, there is no need for brackets around the letter. It is just accepted that P can be the sun rises at one, Santa Clause is French, Paderweksi has no musical talent, or what have you. Whether these linguitsic entities express propositions is a matter of debate and it would be a violation of NPOV to just assume that they do. So, ignoring the issue of de-re and de-dicto, the statement:

S beleives that it is true that epistemology... true is just generally considered to be an instantiation of S beleives that it is true that P. If we wanted to say "S beleives that the sentence epistemology is true is badly formed" (or somethihng like this which involves mention of the words and not usage) we would write "S beleives that P or 'P' or "P" (or something like that) is badly formed.

It seems to be just matter of the conventions used that is causing some confusion in your case. But if you read a great number of recent philosophy of langiage artciles, and books, I think you will not that the accepted usage is something cery close to what I have described. I hope this helps. Introducing bracket notation and so forth will probable just cause confusion for others.

In fact, all of this based on the standard vocabulary of first-order and sentential logic. I just popped out this old book which is much clearer than I have been. It simply states the vocabulary of sentential logic as: Sentence Letters, Connectives, parens, etc..

A Sentence letter is any symbol from the list: A,...Z,A₀,...Z₀. These sentence letters are sometime called sentence variables since we use then to stand for sentences of natural language. No brackets are need for sentence variables. --Lacatosias 09:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. My linguistic abstraction model is apparently not quite so uncontroversial as I imagined. The Rod (☎ Smith) 17:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem.--Lacatosias 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Coincidence?

I used to correspond via e-mail with an Italian PhD student in philosophy by the name of Francesco. We met at another internet forum I shall not mention here. If you are indeed who I think you might be, then you would know me as "DSCH" or "The Man". ;-) --Abt 12 00:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were on to me, for a moment there. But this could indeed be a coincindence, since I do not recognize your two "handles" from any of the Internet forums in which I have participated. However, if you do indeed know me through any other Internet forum beside this one, then you would obviously recognize my username as "Gilgamesh". I will say no more than this. --Lacatosias 09:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Coincidence it is, then. Oh well. "Be seeing you." --Abt 12 10:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah HAHH!! Mere coincidence... nothing supernatural, extraterrestrial or transcendental involved in it? No, of course not. --Lacatosias 17:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

do you speak hebrew by any chance? what made you choose that nick Gilgamesh ? --Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your first question: No, I don't know Hebrew from Hebron. I don't know how the second question relates to the first, but, in any case, I chose Gilgamesh simply because the Epic of Gilgamesh, king of Ur, is one of my favorite poems/legends of them all. I have always identified with the tragic vision of early Sumerian civilization with regard to the destiny of man and the absolute futility but inevitability of the search for immortality. Why do you ask? Is there some other significance to this term in the Hebrew langauge? I would be interested to know if there is.--Lacatosias 14:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It does carry any special significance in hebrew ,but there is however a Very troublesome user by that name in the hebrew wikipedia. He swept the entire project into a tornado of haterd and misuse of administrative powers. because it's a much smaller project it is prone to hostile takeovers of this sort. So he made many good people leave ,after not agreeing with him on various subjects. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, no. It wasn't me. The same Gilgamesh you are referreing to may be on this Wikipedia though. I couldn't get the name becasue it was already taken by someone. It's very common on the Internet. --Lacatosias 09:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

really ,common on the Net ...? go figure maybe the net is just too buig for any charcter set...:) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 18:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't edit others comments

This is considered a very bad behaviour. I understand your intent, but you should've simply contacted me on my talk page and asked me to review the article again. While I apploud your changes to the article, I still think yet more inline citations can be added. For example, from the lead: Reductivists assert that.... Really? No citation to prove it... I'd recommend going over every sentence and asking yourself - is this real common knowledge? If not, give a citation. I'd direct you to my recent FA, the Katyn massacre, for an example of such approach.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, what can I tell you? I apologize for editing your comment and antipicating your vote in this way. I have always been an extremely impatient person and, in my own defense, I can only suggest that I am still relatively new and this is the first time I have participated in this process of Featrured Artciles. I do not understand excatly how things work (as I indiciated in my comment on the talk page of the Featured Article page for Philosophy of mind.

As your point about more citations: I'm not sure I agree with your view that something close to every single line in an encyclopedia entry should be refercned and cited. But I will do the best I can to get at your main objections if you will list them on the talk page.--Lacatosias 09:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, as for my stance to referencing: bottom line is that I think every fact has to be referenced so people can trust Wikipedia. And it will also make it a much more useful tool for academics: if you find a fact in Wiki, you have to search it in primary academic sources to verify it. It would save one lot's of time if that fact was diretly linked to an academic ref (preferably online, so you could verify it with few mouse clicks). See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your point is certainly well-taken. I am not opposed to the idea at all.. However, I must say that you will have one heck of a time trying to get it implemented throughout the English Wikipedia though(I just quickly ran through about 6 or 7 pages of philosphy and even science articles and they completely lacked anything in the way of references except two or three vague external links). Unfortunately, I think this is generally respresentataive of the articled I see. I won't even mention the Italian version of Wikipedia where I once asked on about 10 different talk pages what the basis was or asserting that Garibaldi was a free-mason who had inveneted the term "fascio". I got no response. I deleted the sentence. No one noticed.

There is definitely a serious problem with lack of sources, in any case. In my own case, you must take into account that (I'm not syaing this to boast now, just to point out a fact) the artcile philosophy of mind has been an entirley one-man project. I have added quite a few more citations this afernoon though and would appreciate it if you would take a look at the latest revision and point out any actual factual assertions that are not still not referenced. These will mostly be near the bottom I suspect at this point. --Lacatosias 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Consciousness

I'm thinking that perhaps the article could benefit from being restored to the state it was in before these recent changes, but I'm not the person to do this right now. Alienus 08:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we have another one of these single-minded obsessive-compulsive types on our hands. I'm going to delete the last two paragraphs (at least) from the lead and if this is objected to, I will simply cite WP:LEAD which clearly says not more than four paragraphs and [WP:NOR]]. If this indivual continues, I will out up an RFC.--Lacatosias 09:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just now, I had to report User:Goodandevil for WP:3RR, which will likely lead to them being banned. Given this monomaniac's willingness to revert (and absolute unwillingness to discuss their changes), I think it may end up being recognized as a 3RR violation. All it takes is 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. Alienus 09:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that he's trying to get around this by cutting and pasting the text back in rather than reverting, though. What's usually the next step in these nonsensical battles? All I can suggest now is to keep cutting where he pastes. Or can he be dealt with through some other rules that has he violated? WP:NOR, for example? What a pain!! I don't know that I'd want to be an admin on this site. Have to give them some credit, though.--Lacatosias 09:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see now that you've been very fortunate, in that you haven't had too much experience with this side of Wikipedia. I'm not so fortunate.

There are basically two ways this can go; the hard way and the easy way. The hard way is for him to be reported for 3RR violation on WP:AN3. Since he's all alone and there are multiple editors who oppose him, all we need to do is keep reverting his changes until he hits the limit. This is the hard way for him, but the easy way for us; it is brute force.

The easy way is for you to explain to him just what he's doing wrong, as you've been trying. If you can get throught to him, then maybe he'll stop what he's doing and perhpas even make some positive contributions. This is the easy way for him, but the hard way for us; reasoning with someone who may not be reasonable.

I'm a crude, violent person, so I tend to give up quickly on the easy way. Perhaps you'll do better with him. If not, the hard way is always available. Alienus 09:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to avoid talking to him because, quite frankly, what he's talking about is utter nonsense. He referencing pop science quacks and science fictions writers equally. I can't muster any respect for him, and that would make it particularly difficult for me to act civilly. Alienus 10:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

spam

At Talk:Consciousness, you said that User:Ndru01 sent spam to your email address. Can you elaborate? — goethean ॐ 17:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It was only three or four emails. Let's not get carried way with this thing. My objective was to get him to stop sending me emails repeating the same questions that I had already answered on the talk pages. Hopefully , it has worked. He will continued to reverted for his nonsensical edits, in any case.--Lacatosias 14:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not enjoying this anymore

Goodbye Wackipedia......

YOU GIVE; YOU GIVE; YOU GIVE; YOU GIVE; YOU RIP YOUR FUCKING BALLS OFF WORKING VOLUNTARILY TO IMPROVE ARTICLES, CREATE ARTICLE, SHARE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOMETHING YOU KNOW WITH OTHERS, YOU WISH TO EDUCATE AND INFROM AND YOU GET SHIT, YOU SEE, YOU GET DOGSHIT in return. Ohhh golllllly ggegggeee,I appreciate your contribitution, why don't you just erase it all so I can SEE what the article was like NINTY YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS A FUCKING STUB WRITTEN BY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. WHAT THE FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK??? WHAT THE FUCKKKK DO YOU PEOPLE WANT FROM ME, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. YOU WORK FOR NOTHING, GRATIS; YOU THINK I'M A FUCKING IDIOT, EH??? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T FINISHED MY FUCKING PH.D.?!!!! DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY THAT IS THE CASE??? BECAUSE I HAVE SPENT ABOUT 80% OF MY FUCKING LIFE SUFFERING FROM UNIMAGINABLE NEUROLOGICAL ILLNESSSSSES WHICH HAVE PREVENTED ME FROM LEAVING MY BED FOR YEARS AT A TIME. WHAT ELSE? YOU SELFISH AND UNGRATEFEUL BASTARDS AND NUTCASES"!!! DO YOU WANY MY CRUCIFIXION???? I'VE ALREADY BEEN CRUCIFIED FOR THE LAST THIRTY FUCKING YEARS!! I'VE SUFFERED WORSE THAN CRUCIFICTION. AS NIETCHCHE FUCKING PUT IT: I HAVE BEEN PLACES YOU CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE; I KNOW THINGS WHICH YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW THE POSSIBILITY OF. YOU TAKE MYYYYYYYYYYYY SHIT OUT AND LEAVE IN THE SHIT BY NDRU: I HAVE TO DEAL WITH NDRU. I DON'T BLAME The MOTHERFUCKER, JUST ADD ANY SHIT YOU WANT IN THERE; THESE FUCKER'S DON'T CARE ABOUT CONTENT; IT'S ALL ABOUT GETTING BASHED BY SOMEONE HAS NEVER EVEN READ A WORD OF PHILOSOPY IN PEER REVIEW; THEN YOU DON'T HAVE 9000000000000 CITATIONS IN YOUR FEATURED SHIT ARTICLE: THEN NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE SHIT YOU WROTE ANYWAY;;;;;;;;

what the fuck man..?--Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a bad day.--Lacatosias 08:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

...um, hi? Not sure based on the above exactly what your status is, but as you seem to have some knowledge of philosophy I would appreciate your contribution to some material I added to Ayn Rand. Specifically, the caption I wrote for the picture of Kant summarizes an aspect of his view that I almost certainly either misunderstand or have oversimplified. Since I'm not comfortable making statements about Kant's epistemology, maybe you could help out? Kaisershatner 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it. Kant is rather hard, if not impossible, to capture in soundbytes though.--Lacatosias 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Belated thanks for a very pleasant April Fool's day jest! Banno 09:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha!! I hand't even realized it was April fools day when I posted that until you just mentioned it. Fascinating!! That would have been a truly awful joke, though. At any rate, it's still there, so it was not intended as a jest. Your welcome. --Lacatosias 09:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fodor.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fodor.jpeg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)