User talk:Banno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old stuff: [1], [2], [3]

Contents 1 Epistemology article 2 Request for Arbitration against me 3 Arbitration of DotSix requires evidence in a new form 4 Troll food 5 Philosophy 6 Leadoff Batter 7 DotSix 8 vprotected 9 RFC 9.1 More About that bridge 10 Re invitation to WPP 11 Uncritical criticism 12 He's Back 13 If you recall the Bensaccount RfC 14 Final decision 15 Thank you for your vote, and HDI discussion underway ... 16 NPOV under attack 17 Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy 18 I have some questions for you 19 Urgent deletion issue: you voted before you had all the facts 20 My comments on your edit. 21 dude 22 RFA/Banno-- a possibility which you might welcome. 23 Congratulations! 24 RE: Belated thanks 25 Category:Contemporary_philosophers 26 Welcome 27 Falsification 27.1 Sokal 28 Talk Ex-Yugoslavia 29 Thanks 30 Awesome work! 31 The Failure of Wiki 32 Truth, etc. 33 Barnstar 34 Trolling on Truth 35 Need help in discussing a list 36 Category Philosopher 37 Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates/Jerry Fodor 38 rand as major philosopher 39 Categories 40 Private language argument 41 Truth theory 42 WikiProject Philosophy Query 43 Creating Infoboxes 44 Knowledge 45 Philosophical Societies

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia. 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)

[edit] DotSix

DotSix has been blocked under his IP 67.182.157.6,[4] but has made six edits since then using 172.198.185.228 [5]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] RFC

I have withdrawn my certification of the RFC against Bensaccount [6] 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. [7]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 (Wikipedia: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)

[edit] If you recall the Bensaccount RfC

I've been RfC'd by SlimVirgin on violating Wikipedia is not a battleground. I've posted some information about how she injected herself into the Wikipedia: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 [[8]]. Could you provide a comment of your view about what happened around the Bensaccount RfC. You can post it here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2. Thanks. FuelWagon 18:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia article called "toilet-related injuries" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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))

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy

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

[edit] I have some questions for you

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

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Process is Important? DES ^(talk) 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)

[edit] 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! -- Francs2000 02:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

[edit] RE: Belated thanks

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

[edit] Category:Contemporary_philosophers

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

[edit] Welcome

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Sokal

Aaron, you appear to be the author of this dif [9]. 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)

[edit] Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

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

[edit] Thanks

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Categories

Ah yes, I did wonder if that was going to be a problem. Does it matter a lot? The problem is that with all the wretched subcategories, it was hard actually to find out what was there. You have to keep clicking all the buttons and what not. And many articles were badly categorised in any case. Could we keep it like this until I've completed my research, which is to find out all the stuff that's there, in case any are worth keeping? I've slapped a lot of clean-up tags. Surely the main issue rather than debate about which goes in which category is to identify which articles need clean-up. Or is there a way to search on all such articles? Dbuckner 07:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I visited the category talk page and I see why you are raising this. You went painstakingly through and removed the top level cat and now I have put them back. But then tell me where I can see a list of articles about philosophers? Everywhere I click I see yet another list of categories. I wouldn't have a problem if the list of subcategories were sensibly small, but you have European philosophers, Polish philosophers. Don't really see the need for a subcategory at all, except for philosophers. Why have a category of philosophical problems, e.g.? Mad. Dbuckner 07:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't take credit for all the subcategories; all I have done is attempt to arrange them into some order. See Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories for more explanation. More comments on your talk page. Banno 11:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I was only doing this in order to separate all philosophy articles whatsoever into the 'need a lot of attention' category, and those which don't, I suggest do exactly that. I'll remove all the in-breach tags at some point. Dbuckner 08:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Got your message on the talk page thing. I'll try that out. Dbuckner 11:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now tried it out. The problem is that it sends you to the talk page, not the article itself, whose dire state is the one I want to see. I want to do something quite simple, which is to have a list of all the philosophy pages which need work, in one place, and where I can in one click get to the offending article and do something about it. You seem more worried, if I may say, about the general look and feel of the navigation, than an encyclopedia with terrible articles in it. Aren't you worried by this? I hadn't realised how bad it was until I started this. Dbuckner 11:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What I said was that categories are primarily a navigation tool, not a way to keep track of poor pages. So yes, I am more worried about the look and feel of the cats pages - because that directly effects their effectiveness as a navigation tool, which is what they are for - then their effectiveness as a way of finding junk articles. See your talk page for another solution to your problem. Banno 21:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Truth theory

Just a message to let you know that I decided to put this on AfD: Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)