User talk:Lestrade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You need to learn the difference between OPINION and FACT, "Lestrade." No one wants to hear what your local pastor or reverend told you about homosexuality, so keep it to yourself, Fundy.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.225.85 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lestrade, I appreciate your desire to avoid unclear adjectives in the Idealism article, specifically "real" in the first sentence. However I don't think that "as we experience it" makes the point. "Real" is a technical term for Hegel, as the section of the Idealism article that deals with Hegel brings out. Hegel distinguishes between "existing" and being "real"; hence the two parts of the clause that you edited ("a world of material objects containing no thought either could not exist, or would not be fully 'real'"). And Hegel doesn't in any way appeal to the "world as we experience it": for him, that would not be a philosophical argument. I realize that the clause as I drafted it won't be crystal clear to a reader who's not yet familiar with Hegel's distinction. But I think it's important to register the distinction, because it's important not to give readers the mistaken impression that all idealists deny the possible "existence" of a world containing no thought. Hegel, in particular, doesn't deny it. I'd be grateful for any thoughts you have about this issue. best, Bob Wallace philosop@execpc.com

In regards to your comment "Greatest?" on the Emerson page: As a scholar and book collector, to my knowledge this is true in 2 of such collections of the "100 Greatest Books of All Time Collections" done by 2 publishing companies, both the Franklin Library and the Easton Press. Hope this helps. colinrcummings

I notice that you've edited a few philosophy articles. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about philosophy in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on philosophical topics. Banno 21:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Forum discussion

I think the issue sufficiently interesting to get outside opinions. This forum is predominantly idealist, so Perhaps the idea will get a sympathetic hearing[[1]].

Welcome to Wikipedia. You have been editing for a few weeks, so probably you feel comfortable with it by now. But you may still find some helpful info: click here

  • Be Bold with your edits but also be moderate, check out the policy on NPOV, or neutral point of view and remember to cite your sources. Proper Wikiquette suggests it is a good idea to make a suggestion first on the discussion page of a controversial article before making substantial edits, if you wish to avoid an edit war. We do not own the material we contribute, so be prepared to have your entries edited mercilessly— the thought "but it's my article" should never cross your mind.


  • When most of us start working on Wikipedia or its sister projects we think of them mainly as information resources, but Wikipedia is also an international community. It is a way for us to share and collaborate as we work towards the elusive goal of consensus. Check out the Community portal at the left of any page to find many opportunities to work together.


If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Happy Editing. --Blainster 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] italicization of titles

Hi, thanks for the message. Book titles should be italicized. I think it's because links get underlined, so underlining titles would often be superfluous. Essay titles should be within quotation marks, as you know. Good work on German Idealism! --goethean ॐ 16:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HH

"Can Hefner be largely responsible for the epidemics of genital herpes and AIDS, as well as the destruction of the institution of marriage?Lestrade 16:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade"

The answer of course is yes, reagdles of what this anonymous sleaze and guys like Robert <erkel think.

[edit] Lichtenberg quote

Hello. Could you provide the original German of the Göttinger Taschen Calender quote, as you did for the Waste books quote? I try to find it out myself, but my Promies edition seems not contain it. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 12:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see... so what's your source of the English? It might give us clues to trace the original. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
just to say sorry... I mixed up your edits with another guy's, only now do I know that it's not you who added the unsourced quote. Sorry for the bothering. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 07:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article creation

An article you recently created, Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's schemata, has been speedily deleted because it gave no context. Also, since it consisted almost solely of quoted text, it may have been a copyright violation. When creating articles, please be sure to provide enough context to be informative to general readers. Citing sources as you did is strongly encouraged, but please do not simply copy large blocks of text, even with attribution, as the sole content of the article. Thank you. --Ginkgo100talk 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Gender-neutral language

Regarding use of "guys" – I don't know why people don't object to the word. Maybe because it's more informal? ... discospinster talk 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCarthy, McCarthyism

I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Antichrist

Yo, just stopping by to congratulate your excellent work on the Antichrist article, much appreciated, keep it up!Skomorokh 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schopenhauer

This writer is fascinated by Schopenhauer, even though he knows that Schopenhauer was very wrong on many topics. However, Schopenhauer seems to have been very right about many issues that other writers could never have understood.
When past thinkers, such as Schopenhauer, are disregarded because it is believed that they have been superseded, their valuable contributions are lost. Then, later thinkers must reinvent and rediscover, if they are fortunate, what had already been given to them, sometimes in a purer form than they could find for themselves. Lestrade 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Lestrade

well said!! it would seem to me that you have taken up 'true education' if you consider the following opinion: "I believe that true education accepts the greatness of a personality and corrects small errors, or brings incompleted thoughts to conclusion." (Rudolf Steiner, from 'Friedrich Nietzsche-Fighter for Freedom'). just wanted you to know that i appreciate your thoughtful comments. all the best -- Johnrpenner 16:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful, beautiful work on "Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy." Well done! (Signed, a satisfied and enlightened Wiki reader.) Ocanoe (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are funny

"It is an occupational hazard for women who are gym teachers or public speakers." I don't care what they say about you, you're funny.KD Tries Again 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)KD

[edit] Gould, Bernstein & Brahms 1962

Hello. Can you explain why you deleted the text I inserted about the (in)famous 1962 performance? Deleting good-faith additions without so much as a word of explanation seems somewhat rude to me. Cheers -- JackofOz 07:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My sincere apologies, Lestrade. I was confusing you with another user. Cheers. -- JackofOz 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetics

Hi Lestrade,

Thank you for your contribution to Aesthetics. I created the whole bottom portion of the page (about Aesthetics in various fields) so I always welcome new contributions.

My focus on the bottom section has been to point out the aesthetic values that make up a particular field of art. The present section on Digital Art reads, however, like somebody trying to justify that Digital Art is indeed Art. We already grant you that. So move on. What specific Aesthetic features come into play when designing Digital Art. That is what should go into this section. So as not to enter an edit-war, I'll append my observations to your justification, but I am still thinking the justification is unnecessary.

Best regards, Jeff C —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffC (talk • contribs) 03:43, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heinrich Ewald Hering

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Heinrich Ewald Hering, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/2655.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.--Diletante 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I don't know why I thought the speedy had been removed, but I now see that it wasn't. Totally my mistake, please accept my apologies. -- Diletante 18:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speak for yourself

"But we don't gape at mathematics. We use mathematical symbols to measure and organize quantities."

That is nonsense. You don't gape at mathematics. You may perhaps use it only for those utilitarian purposes. Speak for yourself. Michael Hardy 22:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mathematicians assert that they experience beauty and elegance in mathematics, but they never explain or try to make sense of their assertion. They want to convince listeners that they are speaking of a mystical experience, unavailable to the lay public."

Sigh.... The word "never" here is greatly exaggerated. It is true that mathematicians are generally quite inept at explaining this phenomenon. But in fact most mathematicians would love to make it broadly available and very many of them attempt to do so. Sometimes it's done very well by skillfully exhibiting examples (I'm thinking of Stanley Ogilvy's book Excursions in Geometry and some others like it), but rarely does any mathematician do a good job of explaining it. Some of Gian-Carlo Rota's comments in his book Indiscrete Thoughts (not to be confused with his other book Discrete Thoughts) do far better at explaining it than most mathematicians have done. In particular he makes a careful distinction between beauty and elegance. (He ends up at a bottom-line conclusion that I don't agree with, though.) Michael Hardy 22:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Art Renewal Center

I did reply to your post... Tyrenius (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Michael Richards are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jaysweet (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Detroit

Thanks for fixing things at Sensualism. I've never been to Detroit. Why do you ask? --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

FYI Eusebeus (talk)

[edit] May 2008

Regarding your comments on Talk:John Updike: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Berkeley

Hello, I'm working in the Spanish wikipedia and today I've been translating the article A_Treatise_Concerning_the_Principles_of_Human_Knowledge. When I finished, looking at the book I realised that the article stops at § 86 but the book does at § 156. As it seems, when looking at the history of the article, that you are the main contributor there, my question is if you are wishing to continue soon. Were it not so, I possibly could finish the Spanish version, but my English is not so good to do the same in English (and I have only a Spanish translation of Berkeley's book anyway, so there could be mistakes in the re-translation of the terminology). In order to have unified versions I'd rather wait until you (or somebody else) finish it, but I wouldn't if it is going to take a long time. Maybe it would be better if you answered me in wikipedia.es as I don't visit the en.wikipedia that much; but you can also create a discussion page for me here if you want to, anyway. Thanks. Fernando H (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)