User talk:Loxley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Goodbye Wikipedia

Once articles have been written it would save a lot of angst if they were updated in steps (3 month intervals?) approved by an editorial board. This would have prevented my troubles and most other problems on Wikipedia.

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 13:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New messages to the bottom

Just a reminder: the protocol here on talk pages is to leave your new messages at the bottom of the page, not at the top like a blog. (I noticed you put the message at the top of Talk:Consciousness) --Blainster 04:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spacetime theories of consciousness

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you read the rules properly you would know how to properly move a page. We use the move feature because it preserves the article's history of authorship. Cutting and pasting as you did destroys this history. Secondly, the renaming was done to make the article NPOV and more accurate. Your renaming it back does the opposite. -MagnaMopus 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alienus dispute and related

[edit] Mediation Cabal request made re. Dennett-related articles

Dear Loxley: Hello there, my name is Nicholas Turnbull and I'm the leader of the Mediation Cabal, an informal initiative to provide dispute mediation on Wikipedia. A request has been made by User:Alienus to us to mediate regarding a series of editing conflicts arising over differing points of view about Daniel Dennett's works, amongst other things. I would be most grateful if you would please read the request page and write your views on the matter under "Comments by others", letting us know whether or not you feel a dispute exists, whether you think mediation would be appropriate and, if you are willing to do so, your approval to enter mediation. I look forward to hearing from you again soon. If you require any help or assistance relating to this matter, please do not hesistate to contact me or one of my colleagues at the Mediation Cabal. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have completed the "comments by others" section. I am happy to enter mediation and would appreciate help on focusing the discussion on the 5 or 6 actual changes that are in dispute. loxley 16:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medcab request - mediator evaluation has been made

Dear Loxley: I have completed my initial evaluation of the Dennett dispute, which I hope should be of some assistance to you. I would be grateful if you would review what I have written, and to pay specific attention to the recommendations made there. Please write any comments you wish to make on my evaluation in the section provided underneath. You can find the Medcab case proceedings at:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/06 12 2005 Alienus and Loxley edit war over Dennett and Philosophy of the Mind

I look forward to your response, and I am most sorry for the time it has taken me to come up with a proper evaluation. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update on Mediation Cabal case - case closed 7 Jan

Dear Alienus: This is a final status update on a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, Alienus and Loxley edit war over Dennett and Philosophy of the Mind. Due to a pending arbitration case I have closed the mediation case; disciplinary action is outside of the scope of mediation, although if the Arbitration Committee rejects the case you may request for the mediation to be reopened. I have published my final recommendations here, which you may find of interest. Should you require any further assistance please do not hesistate to contact either myself or one of my colleagues at the Mediation Cabal. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartesian materialism and Multiple Drafts Model

I created and referenced all the resources for both articles. I honestly believe that they will represent a POV if left in their current form. These articles are an interesting problem because there are only 2 contributors and there is deadlock. The arbitrators did actually agree with my point, they said that "If an RfC doesn't help, we'll have to accept, I think, but until then, reject" and "the article ought not to be about Dennett and his views, that stuff belongs in the article on Dennett" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cartesian_materialism . But then they didn't make a ruling. One of the big problems is that I cannot get Alienus to respond to any specific item, I just get generalities. Maybe I should just let this go but I have a feeling that if we do not make a stand in every article for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia the whole project is lost. If you can help in any way I would be very grateful. loxley 09:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Loxley: If you would like me to help, then I am as always at your service; however, I am not sure what remains that I can do for you, since I have already tried to attempt to get Alienus and yourself to see eye-to-eye to no avail. The best I could suggest would be if I participated as an editor in those articles, judging it from my perspective, and talking to Alienus as appropriate to discuss the matters in which we might disagree about the article contents. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A third party editing this article would probably resolve our problems. If there are just two contributors who "fall out" there seems to be no escape. loxley 10:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartesian materialism

Hi Loxley, can you say on the talk page what you feel is wrong exactly with the version supported by me? This dispute's been going on for a while, so it would be good if you and I could agree on a compromise. Alienus 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is about the use of Dennett's definition in the introduction to CM. Please see the talk for CM. loxley 18:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you refusing my request? Yes or no? Alienus 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, the only major disagreement between us is, and has always been in the case of CM, the use of Dennett's definition of CM as if it were a "conventional" definition of CM in the introduction to the article. His definition needs explaining. If you look at the Talk for CM you will see this objection repeated over and over with endless reasons why it should not be in the introduction to the article. These reasons have garnered an endless response from you to the effect that you think I am an idiot and you are not going to allow the article to be changed. loxley 09:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether these topics have been discussed in the past; of course they have. The issue is that I have been asked to justify my version in contrast to yours as the baseline, so I am asking you to do the same with mine.

This is not the same thing as pointing to previous conversations or even to your responses to my latest summary of my arguments.

I'm asking, for the last time, whether you will explain precisely what is wrong with my version, without referencing anything prior. This is a yes or no question.

In fact, it's even simpler than that: Any response short of actually fulfilling the request amounts to a no. Therefore, your answer thus far is no. Is this your final answer or do you wish to change it? Alienus 18:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the Cartesian materialism talk page where this is discussed in full. loxley 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You'd like to arrange it so that I need to justify each difference while all you have to do is defend yourself against my arguments. Sorry, but I don't play burden tennis and I don't put up with unequal treatment. You've refused my reasonable request. Alienus 02:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to allow this to be framed in terms of my changes to your document. I demand parity. Alienus 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hi. I hope you don't mind if I'm fairly brief. It is clearly inappropriate for me to comment extensively on an ongoing Arbitration request. In Wikipedia, arbitration does not deal with content. The request you made was generally about content, with behaviour a side-issue. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How it's done

Just now, a reasonable change I made on an article was reverted without explanation. Did I panic? Did I curse or scream? Did I go running to admins or launch an edit war? Nope? See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#Positive_rights

This is how easy it is when I deal with reasonable people. So why is it that things are so ugly when I have to deal with you? I submit that the fault is entirely yours. You do not belong on Wikipedia because you are incapable of civility, neutrality and compromise. You bring out the worst in everyone around you and leave behind poison in the articles you edit. In short, you should go run a blog on MySpace, where that sort of behavior is par for the course. You're clearly in over your head on this site. Take a hint: go away and do not return to Wikipedia. It will be a better place for your leaving. Alienus 20:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive reverting on Multiple Drafts Model

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Blocked for 24h, which is a bargain, considering the truly excessive number of reverts involved. Alai 02:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We deserved it. But what can you do when another user simply reverts anything you contribute? loxley 14:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old dog

Have you learned nothing?! The first thing you do when you come back is to vandalize the usual pages. Amazing. I know: how about you keep this up until we're both knocked off Wikipedia for the next year? And then you can start vandaling again once the anniversary comes and see if we could perhaps be knocked off forever. Brilliant. Or, uhm, you could stop vandalizing. But, no, that's insane. Forget I even made the suggestion. Just go back to your usual way of doing things, learning absolutely nothing from the experience. Alienus 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 2.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)