User talk:Alcmaeonid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've got the floor. To leave a message on a new topic, click here .
 Note: if you start a dialog here, I will respond here and not on your talk page (thus keeping the conversation in one place.) - oh and please do sign your posts.

It is clear that if we are to live in harmony with ourselves and with nature, we need to be able to communicate freely in a creative movement in which no one permanently holds to or otherwise defends his own ideas [...] after all, it is easy for each one of us to see that other people are 'blocked' about certain questions, so that w/o being aware of it, they are avoiding the confrontation of contradictions in certain ideas that may be extremely dear to them.

The very nature of such a 'block' is, however, that it is a kind of insensitivity or 'anesthesia' about ones own contradictions. Evidently then, what is crucial is to be aware of the nature of ones own 'blocks'. If one is alert and attentive, he can see for example that whenever certain questions arise, there are fleeting sensations of fear, which push him away from consideration of those questions, and of pleasure, which attract his thoughts and cause them to be occupied with other questions. So one is able to keep away from whatever it is that he thinks may disturb him. And as a result, he can be subtle defending his own ideas, when he supposes that he is really listening to what other people have to say.
David Bohm, On Dialogue

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Since you haven't been welcomed yet...

Welcome!

Hello, Alcmaeonid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Lisatwo 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schopenhauer

  1. Never, never insert comments on the top of the user's talk page. It's rude, disrespectful and against the WIKI etiquette. Your comment was deleted as will be others inserted in the same manner.
  2. Don't run around calling people vandals without proper evidence.
  3. Always read other people's edit summaries. Usually a simple explanation will be provided there, even for what you might find as a shocking edit.
  4. There was conflicting information in the infobox (Stutthof) and in the text (Danzig) and I had to correct it.
  5. Don't use the Danzig (Gdańsk) vote as an excuse for petty edit wars, especially if you don't understand the outcomings of the vote.
  6. Answer on my talk page (on the bottom, where it won't be deleted), how, in your opinion, did I violate the vote consensus.
  7. Avoid pointless edit wars by discussions on Talk pages and reaching consensus there.
  8. Don't push your POV by issuing warnings to other users.
  9. Since this is (hopefully) your first time and I have not heard any complaints about you, I'm going to go easy on you. In the future, however, behavior like that will be immediately reported and sanctions against you will be taken.
  10. Your cooperation will be appreciated by the whole community.

Space Cadet 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. Ignore threats, and stand up to edit warriors. -- Matthead discuß!     O       06:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Become a Pole hating edit warrior yourself, like Matthead here. Space Cadet 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. it is not against Wikipedia:Etiquette
  2. he does not run around calling people vandals
  3. the Space Cadets edit summaries "Danzig was Polish, Stutthof was not. Correct me if I'm wrong." and "Still part of Poland until 1793." are unenough to change Danzig to Stutthof[1]
  4. Cadet did not correct it. he changed it wrong
  5. Alcmaeonid had no petty edit wars
  6. this must be done on the talk page of the article
  7. Cadet changed Danzig to Stutthof so he must do that
  8. Cadet knows not his POV
  9. Cadet has no right to issue threats
  10. Cadet is not the whole community--00:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Yes it is.
  2. He did call me a vandal
  3. Corrected inconsistency
  4. Corrected inconsistency and then went along with DaQuirin's explanation
  5. Started one with me
  6. As long as it's done which it wasn't, but just simply got ignored
  7. I did
  8. I do
  9. Informing fellow Wikipedians of the policies and rules is not considered a threat
  10. I'm not. But due to my WIKI experience I can sometimes speak for it

Space Cadet 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your defense my anonymous friend (further above) but I would advise a sovereign detachment, bearing in mind that everywhere, and at all times, we must allow the fool to be a fool. Alcmaeonid 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Namecalling is also a reportable offense, unfortunately. Stop already. Space Cadet 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, one or two of my edits should not have been marked as minor. Have a good day.Andycjp (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia, Pro & Con

Ongoing random thoughts. Feel free to add your own.

[edit] Pros

  • Large editorial staff. Imagine an encylopedia having thousands of editors poring over it's pages everyday making improvements and repairs. And they donate their time and energy for free, just for the pure enjoyment of bringing knowledge to the people. Alcmaeonid 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cons

  • Un-vetted editorial staff. Imagine opening your project to any old editor who may want to join, regardless of qualifications. These editors may have political, racial, nationalistic, religious (add many here) personal agendas and yet are granted the same editorial rights as the rest. Much energy must be continually expended on fighting the polemical contamination of articles by this determined, sometimes fanatical minority. Alcmaeonid 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cristian Fleming

Hi - I have reviewed and declined to speedily delete Cristian Fleming. The article asserts notability through an international tour. In order to be speedily deleted, a page about a musician must not meet any of the criteria listed at WP:MUSIC. You should feel free to list this at articles for deletion, but a speedy deletion is not appropriate in this case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. - Philippe | Talk 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This kind of article only serves to trivialize Wikipedia and tarnish it's image in the eyes of the public. Alcmaeonid 18:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look at this

It's almost done: Glossary of philosophical isms.

By the way, welcome to the Philosophy WikiProject! The Transhumanist 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Hume

Hi. I am a strong Wikipedia supporter and enjoy trying to contribute but am a rank amateur. My comment on psychologists was intended to provide clickable access to an alternate view of induction and how experience may function biologically. Would quoting the work of Skinner or Hebb be appropriate or is referring to psychology in general a no no in philosophy? Lrunge (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Regarding your comment: "Psychologists would argue that animal faith depends on reinforcement" [2] I think it a good one. The concept of reinforcement is highly relevant to the subject. But it needs a supporting citation, and one from Skinner or Hebb would be more than sufficient. In general it is best to avoid "some say" types of statements.
I would also urge you to put something on your home page, anything. When editors see that red color on a user name it creates an immediate subjective bias (unfairly, I know.) Sorry if I was a bit short in my edit comment. I look forward to your contributions on David Hume and elsewhere. If I can help out in any way, just drop a line. Regards, Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your helpful comments. I shall make my contributions more specific and realize that referring to ideas broadly is not all that helpful. Lrunge (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Burton dispute

I think you should be aware that if our dispute is not resolved, I intend to put a POV tag on the article and delist it as GA. An article cannot be good if it is not honest. Haiduc (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rollback

Hello Alcmaeonid.
I have notice that you revert a lot of vandalism. Have you heard of rollback before? It allows a user to revert vandalism much faster than by undo-ing it. I think you should ask for it. I am not an admin, or I would give it to you myself. I wrote this just to let you know about the existence of rollback because before someone randomly gave it to me, I did not know it existed. If you ask for it, you should have no problem getting it, as you clearly have an excellent grasp of what constitutes vandalism. Good luck, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoygabsadds 17:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I have added this Elven dagger to my anti-vandal armory.~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Koestler

You asked for a page number for the references on Koestler's misogyny. As far as I can recall, Cesarani mentions this on a number of occasions in the book. I don't know which would be suitable, but it is one of Cesarani's recurring themes, along with the idea that AK was a Jew in denial. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My only concern here is that these kinds of defamatory statements get properly sourced. Any one of the page numbers you mention would do. I think it should take the form of a complete citation though, as per: WP:CITE#FULL. Thanks for your quick response, Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Btw, the pagenum I requested relates not to his misogyny in general but to the specific charge that he "beat and raped several women." ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Alcmaeonid. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.


[edit] reverted your edit to Allegory of the cave

I reverted your edit to Allegory of the cave since you seem to have replaced a large block of text with an "a". Perhaps you had some reason to remove the block of text and the "a" was a typo? --Pleasantville (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look carefully you will see that I was reverting a case of evident vandalism. [3] The "a" was left over from a previous reference edit. I will fix it up and you can take a look. Although I appreciate your vigilance in the ongoing vandal war, I would urge you to take just a little more time to assess the situation before swinging that axe. Good hunting.~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)