User talk:Simoes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 David Hume 2 Mona Darkfeather 3 Texas State University 4 Barrick Nealy 5 Rorty 6 Image Tagging for Image:Ch1930.jpg 7 Texas State 8 Simões 9 Pauline Robinson 10 Comments 11 PA 12 Thanks 13 Your last comment on Intelligent Design 14 Parapsychology 14.1 Parapsychology, Status of field question of sources 14.2 Parapsychology Talk Page... 15 Page moves 16 Logic 17 Page moves #2 18 Brackets: rationale 19 Awesome! 20 3RR 21 Something about vandalism 22 Ternary_logic 23 Spurious AfD 24 List of political theorists 25 It's "its", isn't it?

[edit] David Hume

Hi Richard, Just to ask, do you have anything more to add to the discussion on David Hume at Talk:List of atheists, or are you happy for him to go back on the list. -- Solipsist 11:12, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mona Darkfeather

She was not Mestizo. I apologize if I have confused you. I called her Spanish/Mexican the same way I would call an Italian immigrant to the U.S. an Italian/American. Her grandfather was William Workman who emigrated from England and settled in the then Mexican territory of Califonia. He became a Mexican citizen. He married Nicolasa Urioste, a Spaniard living in the Mexican territory of Califonia. Their son, Joseph Workman, (Mona Darkfeather's father) was therefore half English and half Spanish. Joseph married an English woman, Josephine Belt, making Mona Darkfeather 3/4 English and 1/4 Spanish. Ted Wilkes 20:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Texas State University

Thanks for your work on this page. Good job! Danlovejoy 04:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barrick Nealy

I have expanded this article, which you had listed on AFD, and I wondered whether you would be willing to reconsider your nomination after the new edits. -Colin Kimbrell 19:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rorty

About me linking that site at Rorty's article, I have made my point very clear in the discussion section. Further explanations can be found at goethean's discussion page. If you would like to debate the issue, fine with me, but working on the shadows like that seems like pure cowardry.

Accusing those who delete your link of censorship and calling them "cowards" and "idiots" does not constitute making a point. As has been recommended before, if you would like to contribute to the criticism section of the article, feel free to included quoted or paraphrased writing from a notable critic. He or she need not be an analytical philosopher: there are plenty of notable philosophers in the continental and neopragmatist traditions who have commented on Rorty. I would also suggest becoming a registered member and behaving with some civility. --Simoes 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Ch1930.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ch1930.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas State

Why is Tim O'Brien not a notable alumni?

[edit] Simões

Tried to register Simoes here but it was already taken, by you! You must be of portuguese descent. It's not quite a common name, after all. Well, good contributions! SimoesBR 16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pauline Robinson

I was thinking of deleting all of the text that was not sourced just as you did. But I noticed that there were a few things that I thought would be interesting, and perhaps notable, if only they could be sufficiently sourced. I even kept some of the Eisenhower and Crowley material to see if anyone could come in later on and confirm, deny, or provide any sources on it. However, since it doesn't seem very plausible and at least one person (yourself) wants to get rid of it, I could let it go. There is other information which is much more plausible which, I think, only needs to be sourced. Thus, I have decided to revert the article and modify it as a compromise between my previous revision and yours. (By the way, am I the only one who uses the talk page on this article when I do a significant edit to it?) --Champaign 02:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Please separate your comments from mine, and avoid adding interspersed comments within the signed comments of others. Guettarda 16:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PA

The page is crawling with admins. Besides, you need to ref what you feel is a personal attack. Are you referring to "Oh stop"? Sorry, but you raised a specious argument -- I have no tolerence for those -- and given all of the specious arguments raised on that page of late, it is simply easier to post short, to the point comments. Also, you need to realise that there is a difference between sarcasm or irony and personal attacks. You see, it's like for example, this post by you [1], was it sarcasm, or a personal attack? (certainly could be a personal attack given the ascribing of motives and bias). You know what they say about glass houses, eh? •Jim62sch• 11:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

FM's not the only admin on the page (there are several others), but please do feel free to deal with him on his own page. And I really do value Bagginator's opinion. BTW, I know full-well what specious means -- thank you very much for your concern. •Jim62sch• 23:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for being thoughtful, it's appreciated. I also really appreciate your reasonable tone at the NC article and look forward to working together there and elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your last comment on Intelligent Design

You wrote;

Your insistences ad nauseum that this law.com articles is a reliable source in the face of my or someone else's pointing out that there is no reason (and/or reason not) to consider it reliable is not a debate. If you disagree with this assessment, I invite you to take it to a RfC.'

Could you translate this? If there is no debate and no controversy over law.com calling John Umana a leading proponent over intelligent design, what is all the discussion about? You also implied that my being the only editor that found it to be a reliable source is not a controversy. What is the number of editors that need to agree with me to turn it into a controversy?Bagginator 00:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my page. I suppose the same could be said about two, three, or any number. What makes a reliable source? Here is what ive found on WP:RS Beware false authority. This wouldn't apply to law.com as their about section should clarify here they have been a newspaper for 25 years in Washington D.C. It is possible that you consider the claim that John Umana is an Exceptional Claim (which is the next on the list) but I wouldn't agree with that. I do not define "leading proponent" narrowly and believe that in this world and even in the United States there can be quite a few leading proponents of any given idea or movement, be it Intelligent Design or animal activism. I also have no reason to believe that Mr. Goldman doesn't choose his words carefully and mean what he says. Another thing that supports law.com as being a reliable source is that it is primarily a legal news source, not simply a gossip news source or your average daily periodical. And Intelligent Design was decided in court, which legal times.com should have intimate knowledge of the players involved. Further, I do not see an agenda here by legal times.com calling him a leading proponent, it is a source clearly available for other editors to check out, has a long history of being a reliable news source and there are multiple steps to publication (Editors) not just one reporter with a single agenda. What is the argument against legal times being a reliable source?Bagginator 02:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I do believe I shall take your advice. It does seem apropos of the editors on that page to bully other editors with RfC's, as suggested by the admin on that page who does not see fit to reign in editors as long as they are in agreement with him.Bagginator 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology

Hi,

I reverted many of your edits of the Parapsychology page. I think you were right about some of them, especially editing out some of the "Other objections to parapsychology" section. But I thought that section needed to be kept till someone comes along who has more sources to cite. I believe that parapsychological results are probably real, but not leaving in that section is unfair to the critics.

Most of the status of parapsychology is controversy. I'm not sure why you deleted "Status of the field," but I wish you had something better to insert. Surely it is better to have some information which is accurate, even if it isn't the right information, or all of it. The psychology of the controversy is truly essential to understanding the field- this is another difference between parapsychology and other subjects.

Also, there is no such thing as a reliable source in this field. All sources are highly questionable to someone. Even Radin doesn't qualify. The nearest thing to "reliable sources" are papers such as http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html, but they are too long and technical for Wikipedia. They are also very highly controversial.

The general structure of the definition was suggested on the talk page, and as far as I know, there are no real alternatives which are informative. Certainly "Parapsychology is the study of certain types of paranormal phenomena" tells nothing. It does not give people any understanding about what parapsychology might be about (see the "Paranormal" page). I've done a lot of editing of the first parts of this article, and I really welcome other contributors, most especially those with sources. I just hope that we can continue to be informative in the meantime.

In short, what you did might very well have been fine for a normal subject. This isn't one of those subjects. It's one of the most controversial subjects out there, except things like abortion (see Status of the field). Also, it's unbelievably difficult to even define. The definition was an attempt to merge conflicting definitions. The section on "Other possible definitions" which you mostly deleted, was an attempt to keep the most informative definition prominent, without totally deleting other definitions which were legitimate. The definition "The study of mental awareness of, or influence upon, external objects or conditions, without any physical or energetic means of causation which scientists currently understand" was the original definition, but didn't cut it for reasons explained there. But it was informative. A person reading that would get a much better idea of exactly what parapsychology is. I was hoping for contributions of other definitions, before possibly deleting them all (then anyway we'd know we weren't missing something essential).

You may very well be right about the bolding in the definition, but while unusual, it does help the reader. If you don't have a better definition, let's keep it till someone does. The difficulty with the definition generally is that people know little from daily life, or culture, which helps them to understand. I recall a lecture by Noam Chomsky about how the dictionary doesn't really define words, only gives hints to let us access our pre-existent knowledge.

I kept some of your edits, and I hope you keep contributing.

Martinphi 21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

left on User talk:Martinphi:

I'd first like to note that your accusation made against me of vandalism^[2] is a gross bad faith assumption. I am only interested in keeping the article in line with the spirit and letter of Wikipedia guidlines and policies. If you are uncertain as to what vandalism is, please read WP:VAND.

Second, your implication that the article is exempt from WP:RS holds no water here. Quite the opposite is true: articles on controversial topics are in the most need of pervasive citations. I've tagged Talk:Parapsychology with {{controversial3}} in order to make this perfectly clear to everyone. Furthermore, the length and/or technical nature of a work does not make it inelligible for inclusion as a citation in an article. Articles on highly technical or specialized topics require highly technical or specialized citations.

We do not keep unsourced and original research material in an article until someone can add proper citations. I'm willing to see that parapsychology is whittled down to even stub length in order for it to be in line with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. If you are resistant to the idea, then further sanctioned steps to achieve this will be necessary. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that your edit did not meet the standard of vandalism. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I didn't know it.

"We do not keep unsourced and original research material in an article until someone can add proper citations."

That's fine.

"Furthermore, the length and/or technical nature of a work does not make it inelligible for inclusion as a citation in an article."

I never said that it did. I said that there are no uncontroversial sources in parapsychology, so one cannot cite definitive articles.

As far a neutral point of view, you deleted most of the balance of the article.

"If you are resistant to the idea, then further sanctioned steps to achieve this will be necessary."

Don't be threatening. You have no special rights on Wikipedia. I can see why you might be angry that I thought your edit was vandalism, but that isn't any reason to threaten. You may likely say you are only enforcing the rules, but there is something to be said for being nice.

There is something I don't understand: I thought that the talk page was not an encyclopedia article. Therefore, I don't understand why additions to it need citations etc. Yet the sign seems to only be for talk pages.

Martinphi 01:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology, Status of field question of sources

I think maybe you didn't like my Dean Radin references. He's one of the primary researchers, so either his books or his site ought to work. And the UNLV site ought to be fine http://twm.co.nz/FAQpara3.htm. Or else, you took stuff out for other reasons besides references. I see only a couple of questionable things about the references as they stood. That was the lack of reference for "scientism" and the reference to Zen and the art of debunkery. As now revised, I found a good reference for "scientism", which doesn't need to be authoritative, because this is a description of a debate. Also, the example of a skeptical attack from the Skeptic's Dictionary. That doesn't need authoritative sources, as it is only an example, and is composed of a quote. Or is analysis forbidden? This shouldn't have POV problems, because it is about science. If this doesn't work for you, can you tell me what more you think needs to be done?

Martinphi 05:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology Talk Page...

(copied from User Talk:Martinphi)

• I think maybe you didn't like my Dean Radin references. He's one of the primary researchers, so either his books or his site ought to work.

You say the blockquote comes from Radin, but provide no reference. That is why I deleted it.

• Also, the example of a skeptical attack from the Skeptic's Dictionary. That doesn't need authoritative sources, as it is only an example, and is composed of a quote. Or is analysis forbidden?

This is a work published by a lay critic, not a scientist. If you wish to have a criticisms in popular culture section, that's fine, but as it currently stands, it only serves as a straw man of more defensible arguments against parapsychology.

• And the UNLV site ought to be fine http://twm.co.nz/FAQpara3.htm.

I note that this is not, in fact, a UNLV site (http://www.unlv.edu).

Some time this week I am going to reduce the article to little more than its introduction and lists of parapsychologists & critics. From there, any statement or set of statements (plus source) you wish to introduce should be first posted on the talk page where a consensus can reached. This is how things are (properly) done on the more articles (see, for example intelligent design and its talk page. Also, please keep these types of posts on the talk page of the article, not our user talk pages. This way others can participate in the discussion. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this:

"From there, any statement or set of statements (plus source) you wish to introduce should be first posted on the talk page where a consensus can reached. This is how things are (properly) done on the more articles."

If it is true that all content should first be posted on a talk page, would you please cite a reference for this assertion? I may be unfamiliar with the rules or customs...

Your intention to delete most of rest of the page does not seem justified, any more, by the Verifiability policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

I believe I've cited reliable sources for a lot of what's still there. Perhaps it would be better to delete only the unreferenced parts of the article.

Be Well,

Martinphi 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again,

I was wondering if you could use some sources which I can read for the paragraph (I think you inserted it) about the Theory of Runs. I don't have a program to read .ps files, and I bet a lot of other people don't either. I also can't understand what the paragraph means for sure. I edited it to be clear, please correct if I did it wrong.

Martinphi 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Hi Simoes. What a mess eh. I wonder if you've seen WP:MOVE, particularly the bit about page histories - I think it is very important that they are kept intact. Maybe we should get an admin to merge the page histories, with WP:CUTPASTE. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logic

Hello Simoes. Logically speaking, you seem to be overstating the degree of change I exacted upon the article. Let me address each of your points individually. As to whether or not there is a 3rd truth value in some logic, please see Ternary logic. It seems to be very obscure (the only mention I've heard of it is through a passing comment by my TA). Secondly, you used the plural to overstate the situation relating to irrelevant categories. I inserted a single category that did not belong, but in the course of doing so I clarified the opening paragraph significantly for those who are not philosophy graduate students (you) or philosophy majors (me). Anyway, once I get some spare time, I'll try to work out a compromise. Thanks, AdamBiswanger1 23:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[copied over from User Talk:Adambiswanger1]

This doesn't address my first point; videlicet, you effectively reverted to a month-old version of the article and made changes from there. As for your point about trivalent logics, I never claimed there to be no such thing. What I did say is that there is no trivalent logic with a truth value of "unknown" (or, at least, there is none across which I've ever come). If you could cite one, that would be great. The reliability of the ternary logic article, however, seems dubious at best (it cites exactly one source, it incorrectly labels fuzzy logic and paraconsistent logic as ternary, et cetera). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves #2

Hi, when a page is moved, such as Pumpkin Queens to Pumpkin queen, does the Pumpkin Queens page eventually disappear or does it remain as a redirect? Thanks and feel free to respond on this IP's talk page. Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brackets: rationale

Simoes, my explanation was brief because I didn't want to say much in an edit summary. I was unaware of the MLA rule for research papers. Style manuals such as Chicago and the APA publication manual give guidance on the use of ellipses when shortening a quotation, and their convention is that ellipses stand alone, without brackets. The difference is that these latter manuals contain instructions for writing material for publication. Because encyclopedias are published – and appearing on the Web is a form of publication – I believe the procedure for published material applies here. Of course, if you have a project that's explicitly governed by the MLA rules, those are the ones to follow there.

The logic goes like this: brackets around ellipses are redundant because the three dots tell the reader that the writer has done something to the original text he or she is quoting. Cognita 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading your reply, I tried to paste our whole exchange into the ID: Discussion page because someone with a longer history here might be able to settle the question. For computer-related reasons, I couldn't. I put it on Jim62's talk page instead, since he was involved earlier. Cognita 06:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome!

This is great! " (... : and what was Thomas Jefferson's opinion on the militarization of space?)" •Jim62sch• 13:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have made 4 reverts on Breaking Free and Alicia Pan. Please revert to previous versions. Nothing personal; this is only a procedural notice. --Oakshade 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've only made three. But thanks for the notice. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something about vandalism

Why did you send a message I just got a message saying that i had vandalised a page what page had i vandalised you are spoting out drivel. This is not place for people who need attention it is serious —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iyouyou (talk • contribs).

[edit] Ternary_logic

IMHO, You have problem with ternary logic. Plz, change back the article. We maked Setun, we understand it. Ignat99 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Aristotlean logic which provides for true and false and .

It is true! Ignat99 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean the Soviet Union and my schools of thought (Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology) and my teacher ([Nikolai Brusentsov http://www.icfcst.kiev.ua/MUSEUM/Brusentsov.html]) and our (russian) philosophers.

>If you think otherwise, you'll have to cite the work and section number.

Брусенцов Н.П. "Блуждание в трех соснах (Приключения диалектики в информатике)" Москва, SvR - Аргус, 2000. – 16 с. и в сборнике: "Программные системы и инструменты",Труды ф-та ВМиК МГУ, №1, Москва: МАКС Пресс, 2000, с.13-23

Васильев Н.И. Воображаемая логика. Избранные труды. - М.: "Наука,, 1989.

Карпенко А.С. Многозначные логики // Логика и компьютер. Вып.4. - М.: "Наука", 1997.

Лукасевич Я. Аристотелевская силлогистика с точки зрения современной формальной логики. - М.: ИЛ, 1959.

Пиаже Ж. Логика и психология // Ж.Пиаже. Избранные психологические труды. - М.: "Просвещение", 1969.

Порецкий П.С. О способах решения логических равенств и об обратном способе математической логики. - Казань, 1884.

Слинин Я.А. Современная модальная логика. - Л.: Изд-во Ленингр. ун-та, 1976.

Стяжкин Н.И. Формирование математической логики. - М.: "Наука", 1967.

Советская научная школа до сих пор питает все научные идеи и разработки в мире. Ваша буржуазная философия чужда диалектики и направлена только на угнетение народа посредством выдуманной истории и философии и ваших законов. Вас обманывает Ваша наука.

Read Aristotle (Organon) and find there word (attendant, circumstantial) and think. :-)

Ignat99 07:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious AfD

Your input is urgently needed on a spurious AfD [3]. -- Fyslee 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your original answer was more correct--TheNautilus 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of political theorists

Hi. I have reverted your edit on List of political theorists. It seems to me that a merge between it and the List of political philosophers is more appropriate than just deleting the information on the former page. Some very notable names only appears on the list of theorists, and ought to be present on a new and merged list. --Thorsen 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's "its", isn't it?

Thank you for astutely noticing that. ... Kenosis 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)