User talk:Banno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Old stuff: [1], [2], [3] [4]

Contents

[edit] Block

Banno, thank you for that. I have altered the introduction to a version that achieved consensus a while back, and, moreover, was not mine, in order to avoid any accusations of conflict of interest. Dbuckner 12:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

Thanks for your email - read with interest. With a few outside reviewers on the article, it might help a bit.

One concern in disputes is that outsiders can sometimes be unaware what's bona fide good content and what isnt, especially in specialized topics like this. So I've set up Talk:Philosophy/Workshop as a way to ask editors for input on selected key questiosn that to me seem to be at the heart of the debate. Hopefully this will rapidly speed up the process.

Although I notice you have stepped away from the topic, please do feel free to comment, and to encourage this approach, if you think it has value. keep in touch on it. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually (DB here) just having seen Peter's message on his talk page, and just having found vandalism on another Philosophy page, I wonder if it really is worth it. We are simply outnumbered and overrun. And it seems to be getting worse. There is no support whatever in the hierarchy of WP for the view that those with professional training have any more value than 'anyone' (as in 'anyone can write an encyclopedia'). Apart from you Banno, you've been very understanding. But this is getting me very low. Time for another Wiki break, and I'm sure I cannot stand a certain person being unblocked and coming back. Really can't face it. Talk to you later. Dbuckner 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all of you. I have encountered the serious sort of problem that you speak of in relation to another Wiki article (where, in manner of speaking, the inmates have well and truly taken over the asylum) upon a very significant scientific issue dealing with both an "intellectual construct" (which they have misrepresented), and its practical, in the world ramifications (which they have also skewed to such an extent that it has no relation to the real practice of real scientists). It seems to me that there is a very significant difference between:

(a) the concept that "all votes are equal" and the assertion that, in science, "all voters are equally informed",
(b) [from (a)] the concept that "everybody is entitled to their opinion", to the assertion that, simply due to no other criterion than they possess life, any given individual has the right to "express their opinion", which becomes further extended into an argument that all individuals must have an opinion, and from this, that in any knowledge-seeking enterprise, the "opinions" of every "stakeholder" must be sought, regardless of:
(i) whether they have an "opinion" at all (and, thus, forcing those who posses no "opinion" at the time they are questioned into to expressing a view that might not have been otherwise entertained); and
(ii) whether they have any experience and/or factual knowledge (i.e., rather than superstitions or beliefs),
relating to the matter in question.
(c) the concept that "science is a co-operative enterprise" and the assertion that "science is democratic" and, from this, the assertion that the view of the majority (or the plurality) must, in virtue of the weight of numbers, be correct (when, in fact it could be that, at a particular moment, only one person has the "correct view"),
(d) an essentially contested concept and a hotly disputed concept.

The fact that I have not "signed" this comment may also be taken as a significant index of the drama that I encountered in my previous episodes of dealing with these sorts of people. In this matter, to use an architectural metaphor, derived from Gothic architecture, I strongly support your enterprise; but rather than being a central pillar, I choose to do it from the outside, as a "flying buttress". I wish you all the best.129.94.6.28 21:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cabal

We are often accused of belonging to a cabal. Perhaps we should. Banno 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What I have in mind is a template similar to the Philosophy task box template:PhilosophyTasks set up so that we can gang up against absurd editing on philosophy articles. Any thoughts? Banno 23:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You say in another message "No, there is no support for the view that some sort of priority be given to experts; indeed, quite the opposite is part of the "Core" of the project. Even as an admin I can't protect pages from obvious idiocy. That's not going to change. For some reason I keep coming back {this is the start of my fifth year as an editor}, as do you. Why have you been here as long as you have? " Silly! As an admin you can easily protect pages from obvious idiocy by blocking obvious idiots. It is normally easy to spot these from just a few sentences of their 'work' (I spotted Ludvikus as a major source of potential trouble the instant I saw his new introduction. And do you not support the view that some sort of priority should be given to those who are not obviously incompetent editors, or who have shown good faith for a long period of editing. Indeed, you implicitly support this principle when you made those comments to Ludvikus a few days back (on the lines of Mel and I have been here a long time and have supported the article through thick and thin).
So why can't this change? Just block the f---ers. I like the idea of a template by the way. The question is what to put in it. Let me think about that.
I had thought of putting myself up for admin, as I am one of the longest-serving editors here. But presumably there is a sort of question-set that would weed out people such as myself? (E.g. there are good answers and bad answers, and 'block the f---ers' is a bad answer - am I right?). Dbuckner 09:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
OK I can clearly see that I am not administrative material. Patience greater than zero is an essential quality. And I can't see that it really matters, anyway. Speaking of which, I see our friend is back. I'm going to take another break until this clears. Dbuckner 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False knowledge

Noticed your point on Dean's Philosophylaughingstock page. While it's true that the orthodox view of knowledge is JTB, the fallibilists hold the view that knowledge may be false. So it's not crazy, just maybe a little bit weird or unexpected. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We will just have to respectfully differ on this. My understanding is that if you know it, it is true. If you thought you knew it, and it turns out that you were wrong, then you never knew it; you only believed it. This is not a philosophical theory, but an observation of English usage. Banno 11:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Lucidish: If by "fallibilism" you're referring to Peirce's approach, then he didn't say that knowledge might turn out to be false; he said that beliefs needn't be certain — that certainty is generally impossible, and that we're better off accepting that rather than trying to achieve knowledge (rather than trying to banish doubt). Popper, who's sometimes also dubbed a fallibilist, held broadly similar views, but again didn't say that knowledge could be false.
If you're referring to some other fallibilism, could you be more specific? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Surely we are not saying that "X knows that p" is consistent with "not p"? Dbuckner 15:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, but I took Lucidish to be saying that the fallibilists thought that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew you weren't saying that. Wasn't talking to you. Dbuckner 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I know you weren't talking to me... (Sorry, Banno, this is polluting your Talk page. I'll stop.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Mel & Dean: I had no specific thinker in mind, I was thinking back to the presentation of "Fallibilism" in my old epistemology textbook ("Knowledge Puzzles" by Stephen Cade Hetherington, Boulder:Westview Press, p107). In it, Hetherington says: "(1) A given belief of yours is fallibly justified = df. (i) Your belief is justified... (ii) A belief's being justified in the way referred to in (i) is compatible with its being false. (2) At least some of your justification is fallibilist, as defined in (1)." He continues: "FJ thus captures a 'loose' approach to justification. Having fallibilist justification is compatible with believing falsehoods; to have fallibilist justification for a belief does not entail the belief's being true. By FJ(1), therefore, such justification is not perfect. A fallibilist is being generous, trying to make justification more accessible for imperfect beings -- such as you and me." Whether one agrees with this view or not (and indeed, it has some fairly obvious objections) it at least can be found in respectable sources. (Though it doesn't matter much, I should add that I find this account the most cogent of the alternatives; but it would take a book to explain why.) { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
(I'm now thinking of changing my name to Pearl.) The quotation doesn't mention knowledge; no-one denies that it's possible to believe something that's false. The fallibilist is offering fallible justification as an alternative to knowledge (which she – mistakenly, I'd argue – takes to be infallible justification). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking (here talking to Banno, but anyone else can listen) the second claim that "If someone claims to believe something, he or she is claiming that it is the truth." is not unreasonable. If I say "I believe that p" and p is not true, then I still speak truly, if I do believe. But if I say "p is true", I speak falsely. For logicians, that is all that matters. Dbuckner 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PS do you want to move this discussion to the talk page of the laughter article, where it strictly belongs? Dbuckner 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that the quotation does not strictly speak of knowledge, the quotes are presented in the context of giving one possible account of knowledge by way of discussing the nature of justification. The implication would indeed seem to be illogical, but only if we maintain the JTB account of knowledge, which we might at some point decide to do without. (Sorry to have plopped this down on your talk page, Banno.) { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 19:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge and belief

The best place for this sort of discussion is probably a forum. My own view, after Austin, was expressed here[5] (Post #104):


On reading your reply, it seems to me that I haven't made my point quite clearly enough.

First, I agree with you that the set of things that we know form a subset of the set of things we believe. But I want to be clear that saying "I believe..." is quite a different act to saying "I know...", and that the difference is not just one of degree of certainty.

Consider "I was certain that my numbers would come up in Lotto last night - but they didn't". This is a well-formed sentence, the sort of thing a gambler might say. She was certain, but unfortunately mistaken. This is quite different from "I knew my numbers would come up in Lotto last night - but they didn't". This latter sentence is ill-formed. Because her numbers didn't come up, she could not know that they would. The difference is that one can be certain, and yet be wrong; but one cannot know, and yet be wrong. The difference needs emphasis, I think. The difference between "I know that..." and "I believe that ..." is one of kind, not of degree.

Consider another example, said by a student, on recievieng a paper back: "I was absolutely certain the answer was 'Timbuktu' - but I was wrong" compared with "I knew the answer was 'Timbuktu' - but I was wrong". Something quite different is happening in the second sentence to the first. To repeat, to say "I know that ..." is to perform a wholly different act to saying that "I believe that...".

The simplest way to bespeak the difference is to say that in order to know something, it must be true; but that one can be certain and yet still be mistaken . But this leads to confusion. A better way to put it might be to say that "I know that..." contains an assurance on the part of the speaker of the truth of the utterance - that the speaker is giving their word that the subject is true. The sentences "I assure you that my numbers would come up - but I am wrong" and " I assure your that the answer is 'Timbuktu' - but I am wrong" are ill-formed in much the same way as "I knew that my numbers would come up - but I was wrong" and " I knew that the answer is 'Timbuktu' - but I was wrong".

(notice that I'm using "assure", not "assured". One can make a false assurance.)

It is worth also drawing attention to the personalisation that takes place in saying that one knows something. "It is true that..." does not say who it is true for - with good reason, since if it is true, it is supposedly true for everyone. This is quite different from "I know that..."; such a sentence must identify who it is that is claiming to know, because we need to be able to identify the person or people giving the assurance.

You are right that some people, such as your neighbour, will say "I know..." more readily than others. But we know he is often wrong. It's not that "Know" is ambiguous, but that these folk are too ready to give their assurance

Banno 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of isms

Banno, do you want to rethink the 'list of isms'. Of course, there are some silly ones ("cosmothetic idealism"). But some isms correspond to divisions that are relevant across the whole history of philosophy. 1. Rationalism vs Empiricism, which begins with Parmenides and continues until today. 2. Nominalism vs Realism, which begins with Aristotle, becomes the central question of the Middle Ages via Porphyry and Boethius, and is still alive today, very much so. 3. Idealism vs Realism, and understanding of which is essential to any understanding of the Early Modern period. Possibly Scepticism.

They are not so much 'isms' (perhaps it was my fault for phrasing it that way. What is needed is a short list of the basic positions in which philosophers have been divided since the beginning of time. Yes? Dbuckner 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a make-or-break issue for me, and in any case I have no intention of editing the article directly. I see your point, and by all emans you might try it; but I think the result will eventually be a very long list of "isms" - as John Lennon said, "Every body talkin' 'bout this 'ism, that 'ism, 'ism, 'ism, 'ism" - Give peace a chance. Banno 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our best friend

Could you possibly start an RfC on Ludvikus? I know you were one of those who tried to intervene, and I'm too involved to do it objectively. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that. He is not actually interfering with the article, but the remarks on the Talk page are wholly obstructive: just a series of personal attacks and vendettas - entirely unproductive. Dbuckner 06:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
He is now claiming that I or someone has been tampering with Wikipedia software in order to make it look that he is the author of certain edits whose authorship he denies. Truly, truly too far. Dbuckner 10:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the obvious next step. I have an idea for how to approach it. I'll have a look in the morning. Banno 12:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I support that too. One can't even attempt to edit under current conditions.

KD Tries Again 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I'd also support a ban of Ludvikus from editing philosophy-related pages. He's perhaps not the only problem, but he's by far and away the biggest; without him things stand a chance of getting somewhere, and the article surely needs it. I don't know what counts as "a handful of admins or users", though; perhaps we could ask at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy or WP:AN. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Banno 06:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rfc question

In reply to your question: you say that you have been asked to write an RFC for Ludvikus, but feel there is sufficient evidence of disruptive editing that might warrant skipping RFC and going directly for a community ban.

Before anything, understand I am not going to advise what you should or shouldn't do, or feel. I'm staying neutral on the article. However the question you ask is one of community practices and policies, and that I can give a summary of.

A ban is the end result of a strongly unfavourable Request for Arbitration to ArbCom, the Arbitration Committee. I don't think you will get that for the following reasons:

  • ArbCom is a final resort, not the first resort. There is no evidence that community discussion would fail, or mediation fail, at this time.
  • ArbCom tries to give minimal rulings - the minimum needed to prevent harm which is occurring. The likely outcome is as follows: A person who is grossly and wilfully violating on a grand scale, may get banned. Otherwise time-limited (1 week to a few months) or topic-limited restrictions ("topic X and all articles on closely-related subjects") are the norm. However these are quite effective at encouraging compliant editing, if agreed, since the block time for breaches usually increase with each breach.
  • You haven't documented the case yet with DIFFs sufficient to prove fault. (I have no doubt that diffs of any bad conduct can be gathered, but it hasn't happened so far.)

My suggestion is that if you feel the conduct of any editor is so persistent and unreasonable/unsupportable, despite explanations, then consider reporting it as vandalism. If you are not sure how best to handle a situation, RFC the situation, putting a section on the article's talk page titled "RFC" and describing the case with DIFF evidence, for comments.

In either case write on the talk page to anyone affected, a summary of what you do and why, so it is clear due explanation and summary is given. Recap everything succinctly and clearly with sample DIFFs of each misconduct alleged. This will be good background if it needs to go further, both as a summary and as evidence you explained it properly at least once, and it continued.

Hope this information helps. But as an outsider, I will be neutral in that topic. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stopped work

I have stopped work as it is completely impossible. Ludvikus is working around the clock. I am frankly astounded at the attitude of one of the admins. It beggars belief. Dbuckner 08:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Look also at the timing of the editing. It is now going almost round the clock, except for a 4 hour sleep this morning. Thereafter edits at 5 minute intervals. Truly obsessive and amazing. Dbuckner 09:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How can we make peace?

Dear Banno, How can we make peace? If I ofended you, I'm sincerely sorry. Please assume good will. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 09:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A remark in Analytic philosophy has your name, but it is unsigned. In the current circumstances, I need to be assured that it's you, and not a vandal. Could you please double check the page for your signatues? Thanks. --Ludvikus 10:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources

I think the 'ecitor' problem may very well get resolved. Meanwhile, in view of the clear problem we have had regarding what is an appropriate source, is it worth having a short discussion about how we interpret the meaning of the terms above? They originated from history, which aims to describe actual events. But of course there are no actual live events of that kind in philosophy (unless we are talking about lives of the philosophers). So we do need a clear interpretation for the Philosophy project. Let me know. Dbuckner 09:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy on Banno's Page

Dear Banno, Wikipedia requires us to assume good faith. So I assume it about you. Please assume it about me. I notice that practically all the people involved in the Editors' War with me, are also doing philosophyon your page. At the same time you are taking the disciplinary action against us.

  • Don't you think there might be a conflict of interests here?
  • Also, don't you think the philosophizing should done on the appropriate page wgere we could all benefit?
  • Also, don't you think a "club" forms in this way. By the way, Dbuckner used the term first. And I notice that you suggest one should be formed (look above) - to rid Philosophy of the rotten apples, so to speak - your precise thought are expressed above - please re-read them. Can you tell if you have formed such a "cabal" already (as you use the word above). In my mind I believe you have. And people naturally do such things. Can you find it in your heart to step forward and do the right thing? I think, from having quickly read the philosophizing that's going on here, on your page, it's clear that Mel is the philosopher here, and I do not have the benefit of sharing these thoughts.
  • I also notice the use of "f**k" on your page against me. That I think is disruptive conduct, in and by, itself. It is the same thing as slapping me in the face. It is aggression. And you clearly do not mind it. But I do, very much so. You cannot slap a man in the face and at the same time call him disruptive - I'm surprised you do not see that.
  • From reading your page, it's clear that Mel is your friend, to whom you are loyal. And it is he who used the Britol Stool Chart, and Dbuckner came back with it again, on the Philosophy page.
  • Do you understand my point? Can you please step forward and do the right things. Let us not forget that Philosophy is about ethics, morality, justice, fair treatment.
  • What do I have to loose here? You think it's my ego, as you pointed out. But what about the possibility of a disappointment in my fello man? I truly want to know that that you are a man of good will. So please do not only look into the logic of things. Please look at your emotions, feelings, and all those things we, in Analytic philosophy, are trained to put aside. But actions, as well as thought, are not solely determined in such a cold, impartial way. Look at our behavior, here, in cyberspace. Is it not clear to you that you have effectively formed a private club in which I cannot get admitance? And that I have been already stigmatized by you as a Wikipedia disruptive person? As someone who is not capable of doing philosophy, As someone who is insane, a Madman? And now I cannot get into this private club? How is it that you do not see this - which to me is so obvious by reading the discussion that has been going on here - behind closed doors? Mel has still not apologized tome. You guys use the words, fuck, shit, dick, against me, but when I use the word Philosopher King you think it's disruptive. But just look over carefully at your talk page. In accordance with Plato's Republic (approximately) it seems to me that you are the Soldier, Mel is the King, Dbuckner is the Worker, and poor Ben is the slave. But I cannot get into you private club.

Do you get my drift?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOUP. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehu Eyre

Hi. I'm a relatively new contributer to Wikipedia, and recently stumbled across an article that interested me about the Revolutionary War. I looked up more sources on the subject and posted them, along with the facts stated in those sources. The article is now tagged as a possible hoax, and I am searching for objective analysis of it from multiple users. If you could please take a look, and urge others to take a look as well, I'd be very grateful.

SwedishConqueror 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

[edit] Thanks

Hi there...thanks for the kind words, and the soup link, which I enjoyed immensely. In my time here, I have looked at:

  1. 9/11 conspiracy theories, where loonies conjecture that the twin towers were zapped by space beams
  2. Passive smoking, where scientific evidence is misrepresented to support partisan lobby interests, and my reference to Roger Scruton was summarily removed
  3. Time travel, which is subjected to a torrent of personal opinings on the possibility/practicality etc. of the subject
  4. Christopher Langan, an 'independent researcher' who would appear to be using Wikipedia to publicise himself and his 'theory'
  5. Philosophy, which seems to be the subject of a dispute over what exactly I cannot tell.

I am too terrified at the moment to go too near my own subject, mathematical logic, lest my heart give out on me. My little adventure on exclusive disjunction (now unfortunately called 'exclusive or' put me quite off that idea for now. And if votes have to be taken to determine whether the article on a straightforward logical connective will be called by its colloquial or technical name (and the colloquial is chosen), I shudder to contemplate the status of more complex articles...

Nonetheless, there's a certain inescapable allure which Wikipedia holds...it's like watching a riot...so I just flip through articles, following one to the next, and do what I can to restore a bit of sanity where I feel I am able. It's always good to know of other rational people floating around, and I admire the tenacity of those who can ride the waves of lunacy and actually build articles — a process to which I should like to contribute a bit more once I have built a solid intuition for the way things work. Rosenkreuz 10:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Category or Categories Stubb(s)

Administrator Banno:

  • 1) Where is/are the original stubb(s) on the above?
  • 2) Who started which Stub on the above?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category of being

Administrator User:Mel Etitis just merged the list with the above. --Ludvikus 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Mel is playing with your head - discuss the List(s) with him. You know the lists - you love lists - I know that. Ask him what he's doing. Remember, it was he who got you into this mess, or did you forget that too, Banno? --Ludvikus 00:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in New York, and it is now Saturday, 27 January 2007, where are you in a time machine? --Ludvikus 00:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC) It's Saturday, 7:50PM. What day is it where you are? --Ludvikus 00:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm from the future. scary, Hu? I still have no idea what you think has happened on those pages. Mel's explanation of his own edits is clear. Banno 01:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not scary. Just cheap software. Explains some of the Vandalism, Witi, I mean, Wiki Administrator Banno. But what happened to the Categories of Aritotle, and Kant? Did Witi Mel flush them down the toilet? I thought you loved Philosophical Lists? Are you afraid of Big Man Mel? Is that why your letting him have his way? Now there's only the Category of being. I thought you too were a philosopher? Do you understand what I mean now? --Ludvikus 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. No idea. Banno 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel just merged all the Categories, of Aristotle's and Kant's together into that one page. Do you agree with that? --Ludvikus 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Which one page? Banno 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There now exists only this: Category of being! --Ludvikus 03:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Category (philosophy) was re-directed to Category of being, as Mel explained in this dif[6]. It's still there, but if you go to it, you get sent to the "better" page. Banno 03:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking if you mean that Mel Merged Categories (philosophy) into Categories of being? --Ludvikus 03:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But why are you asking me? Banno 09:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus is again betraying his inability or unwillingness to read what he's commenting on. Category of being includes the two lists; there was therefore nothing to merge into it that it didn't already contain. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Mel, are you saying that I do not understand Wikipedia's {{merge}} ? --Ludvikus 12:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Among other things, yes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a vast generalization that even I cannot understand. Would you mind very much of compiling a list for me, so that I could be educated by you? Others say I'm a fast learner. Do you think otherwise, Mel? Please give me a chance, Master, won't you? I'm willing to learn, no? --Ludvikus 13:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not amused by the Gollum impression, nor impressed by the idea that "among other things" constitutes a vast generalisation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How can I possibly respond to "among other things"? Could, you Banno, answer such a criticism? I have no idea what Mel wants from me. All I've gotten from him is the Bristol Stool Chart. I did notice a couple of references to Soup, by that too disappeared in all this commotion. I do like soup, but I hate it when someone spits into it. Mel are you spitting into my Soup? --Ludvikus 13:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've re-arranged this so that the thread is a bit clearer. What Mel had done was to re-direct on article to anther; this had nothing to do with me. It gives a very nice indication of Ludvikus' inability to understand the basics of Wikipedia. Indeed, he gives the impression of not understanding Time zones! It also includes a few insulting remarks of his, and shows how he writes in a fashion designed to elicit a reaction, to draw attention to himself rather than to improve the Wiki. This would be useful material in the event of arbitration. Banno 21:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tendentious editing on Being and Time

See my message on the talk page of that article. Dbuckner 19:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Banno 21:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analytic philosophy

Thank you, Banno, for the ambitious edits to analytic philosophy. I'll be very interested to see where this goes. Given the wide range of published references that leads one to wonder where analytic philosophy ends and where [name your preferred alternative] philosophy ends [however vague the boundaries might be expected to be], this could be very interesting. But nonetheless, Bravo!, good buddy. A very sensible improvement to that article on the whole. ... Kenosis 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw that next edit. By my best offhand recollection, it's more-or-less true. Please provide citation(s) for the last edit to the lead, if possible. ... Kenosis 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House of Cards / Francis Urquhart

Hello Banno. I'm not quite sure of your point, though possibly I am. Urquhart eliminated some quite decent people though, didn't he? I don't think he was right to do that. If you're unhappy with any of the changes I made to Analytic philosophy, please revert back, or discuss. We are on the same team. Some people aren't. Dbuckner 12:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. I did wonder afterwards if you had meant that. Franco is coming back, did you know? Exciting. (Never a dull moment, with him). Dbuckner 18:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Lucas

I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page here. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all. Dbuckner 12:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The current dispute in Philosophy

I hope this is not a silly question, but I'd like to get your thoughts here. In regards to the current dispute in Philosophy about an editor, what about using a content fork as a device to handle a conflict impasse? By temporarily separating two or more disparate and contentious pov's, both parties do their own work without interferring with each other.

As it is, there are a number of editors leaving the scene, and I fear some may not come back. Richiar 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not advisable. See Wikipedia:Content forking Banno 10:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have commented on the talk that this is a wider issue. But as a question, Banno, why can't just one of the admins block him temporarily? That seems to have some sort of effect. I've noticed that he doesn't edit the article anymore (disruption to talk page only). Here's an idea: we have a moderator, chosen by consensus (or a group of moderators). If it is felt that some editor is not being constructive, he gets a warning, then he gets a block for a week or whatever. The moderator has no power to block, that has to be done by an uninvolved admin. Why on earth can't we do something like that, and stay within policy? Dbuckner 08:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my email, I'm often in different places, so hard to change preferences. I have done so, I'll let you know when it is validated. Dbuckner 15:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Begging you

Please do something about this situation. I've left another begging note on Gwernol's page. It really is too much now. I tried to modify my mail preferences but can't do that without accessing the mail account, which I currently am not at. The best way to contact me, anywhere in the world, is the comment page of my blog, here. You will have to register on Blogger, but that takes two seconds. The comment should be hidden. Best Dbuckner 07:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ludvikus

Well done. I would have blocked him this morning if you hadn't got there first. Thanks. —Moondyne 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On being handled poorly

I wrote a whole load of things here this morning. Not exactly bad tempered, but irritable. I reacted rather badly to your suggestion that it was the editors' fault, particularly after I checked the exact chronology of events, and particularly when looking at the advice we actually received from admins (which was conflicting, and does not match what you said last night on my talk page). On reflection I have just deleted these remarks, as it's not fair to you when you did in fact implement the block - and thanks for that, of course. However, when things settle down, we should discuss them. It's important for us to know how to deal with this again. (If there is an 'us' - I fear this affair has put off an awful lot of people). Dbuckner 10:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Banno - I will edit your remarks and put them into a side page plus some stuff on WP:OR and other handy tips. If there are any other hints and suggestions (such as the difference between the various ways of dealing with difficult ones, don't hesitate to drop by). Thanks. I think, though, that this was a very special case. Dbuckner 09:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for assistance

Hi Banno, I'm writing because somebody at I.P. 64.230.16.82 has taken to vandalizing my user page, and I'm not sure how to proceed. (You can see the my last edit of my own page, versus his/her latest vandalism, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABuck_Mulligan&diff=112010848&oldid=106167420) Anyway, I guess the whole business started when I left a message on his/her user talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.230.16.82) asking whoever he/she is not to vandalize Wikipedia pages. Probably a stupid thing for me to have done, but I figured there wasn't any harm in it at the time. So: what can I do about this? Is it possible to lock my user page? I'm coming to you for help because I've noticed your name in the "talk" section of the Wittgenstein page, and I don't know anyone else in an admin position to ask about this. Seems like a pretty serious problem to me, though, and it'd be nice to see it resolved sooner than later. Buck Mulligan 05:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Banno. (And thanks for getting to this business so quickly!) Hopefully this will solve the problem. Buck Mulligan 06:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Banno. I'm sorry to say that the same user-page vandalism is happening with I.P. 64.230.16.82, and he's being very persistent (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Buck_Mulligan&action=history). The guy's also getting pretty offensive (calling me a "sweaty loser spic", in his last change, is about as offensive as it gets, I'd say). What can we do? Buck Mulligan 17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, I guess. I just looked at the user talk page for the I.P. in question and see that it's already been blocked from editing "for a short time" by Gogo Dodo. Buck Mulligan 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Banno. I really appreciate your continued efforts on my behalf. As for blocking IPs from editing my user page, that's fine with me. In fact, it'd be fine with me if the block lasted forever. Buck Mulligan 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/n/User_talk%7EBanno_f7b7.html"