User talk:SteveWolfer/archive 1

===========================

Archive created 4/14/2007

============================

Welcome!

Hello, SteveWolfer, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! V. Joe 20:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response re. AWB Edits

Let me start off by welcoming you to Wikipedia. I hope that you enjoy it here and decide to stay.

The cleanup tag indicates, as it says, that the page needs to be changed to meet Wikipedia standards. You can find an exhaustive list of these standards here. The time stamp, as applied by me, is a convention for indicating the age of the cleanup task. Sometimes very old articles for cleanup are prioritized for cleanup. Having these month specific categories also reduces congestion to the general Cleanup category.

You are completely right about there needing to be a "root" page for the two John Rowans. On wikipedia, this is called a disambiguation page. They're pretty simple to make, and you can find more about them here.

Specifically, the article for John Rowan is lacking in that it doesn't interwiki link (that occurs when you place double brackets around the title of another article within the text of your article), fails to assert notability in accordance with WP:PROFTEST, reads like a list of accomplishments (see WP:NOT), and does not use proper section headings. It's kind of hard to understand these things with words, so it might help to take a look at the Featured Articles. They're a great model to work off of when refining an article.

I would encourage you not to get discouraged about this. Let me know if you want any help or if you have any further questions. It would be more convenient for you to respond on my talk page. --Alphachimp ^talk 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications in philosophy

I have replied to your comments at length on my talk page to keep it all together. --Bduke 11:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A yummy mediation

I'm picked up your case at the Mediation Cabal, and will now be handling the dispute. Would you prefer we discuss everything on the article talk page, or some other medium (such as IRC)? --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 08:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the dispute! If it works for you, we can do email between the two of us if needed, and any three-way, or more public communications could take place on your user-talk page (I noticed you have another issue in mediation there). I'm new to Wikipedia so you'll have to let me know how a mediation is conducted. Have you had a chance to read the talk-page entries? Feel free to refer to me as Steve and let me know if you'd like to be called, Prophet, Wizard or ? SteveWolfer 18:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can call me whatever. Well, my talk page works fine. For a faster, real-time discussion... we could actually go to the Mediation Cabal's IRC channel... that might be quicker. Here's a link to the channel: [1]

The Mediation Cabal is an informal group of everyday users that like to volunteer to do this sort of stuff... we're a very informal group with a sort of "anything goes" guideline... so mediation is conducted which ever way is best. --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried clicking on the IRC link - serveral times - but my browser (IE 7 beta 2) either does nothing or brings back a 'page not found' fault. I went to the Wikipedia-medcab page and tried the link there - same results. I wasn't able to find an email address for you. SteveWolfer 21:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, if you are using Firefox or Mozilla download chatzilla and then you can get on IRC from your browser. If you are using internet explorer use MRIRC - a stand-alone client. Good luck with the mediation. --Bduke 23:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikilinks

on Talk:Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology you mentioned that you didn't know how to set up wikilinks. Talk:List_of_publications_in_philosophy#mediation where the part after the # is the section name, will link you right to the section. Also, remember to sign your comments on talk pages. Crazynas^t 22:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our misunderstanding about a reversion

Thank you for your reply. I see that you had good intentions. What I learned from this misunderstanding is: Although I had explained my edit in Category_talk:Ethics, it was foolish to assume that everybody would see this. It would have helped if I had provided a link to the explanation from the change description. Well, I hope no one else falls into the same trap.

If you would like to learn something from it, as well, then I'd like to mention: My primary objective was not to add the book category, but to clean up the Ethics category. So, in my perception, you reverted the reason for my edit. I agree that you were not pushing a POV, but that's not a criterium for edit wars. For me, the criteria are if someone shows understanding (usually, people have good reasons for their edits) and communication (Explain reversions in the edit summary box).

That's all I had to say - have a nice day, too, and happy editing! Common Man 22:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disowned Selves

Hi Steve, I did not remove the disowned selves article from the psychology topics category. That was someone else. Please double check the entry and direct your question to the correct party. Personally, I think it should be included and will support your actions to reinsert it. Cate108 08:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... Thanks Cate108 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Please try to be more consistent in using edit summaries; it helps watchers, recent change patrollers and those digging through page histories. GRBerry 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rand on List of political philosophers, yet again

Dear Steve - I'm disappointed to see that we're back to the same old 'argument by reversion and edit summary'. I'm still convinced that we can come to a reasonable consensus about inclusion criteria and about Rand, and I invite you to talk part in working towards that, rather than playing this rather pointless game of revert and re-revert. Yours, Sam Clark 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again - I've just posted again at Talk:List of political philosophers before I saw your message on my talk page. I shouldn't have lumped you in with LW, and I'm sorry for that: I've also found you reasonable and amenable to compromise. The lesson I should learn here is that I shouldn't get involved in debates on WP after a long day of teaching... I'm going to leave this for the moment, and come back to it fresh tomorrow. Cheers, Sam Clark 19:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent new articles

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Hagop S Akiskal article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I irrevocably release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Mak (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments also, on Talk:List of psychologists. -Do c t orW 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Needed

You have responded to a move debate. There is a related debate where your opinion would be useful at header tags. TonyTheTiger 19:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Johnson Page Move Proposal

You gave an early opinion that helped turned the tide on the Robert Johnson move proposal. I am continuing work on the Johnsons. I would appreciate your opinion on the following:

Samuel Johnson → Dr. Samuel Johnson —(Discuss) Since the Feb 2006 page move, 6 new entries have been added to the Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) page including Sam Houston Johnson, a Presidential sibling, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr., a Presidential father, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Sr., a Presidential grandfather, Samuel Johnson (footballer), an active footballer, and Samuel Curtis Johnson, Sr. the patriarch of the richest family in Wisconsin. The primacy of Dr. Samuel Johnson versus the remaining field of Samuel Johnsons should be reconsidered. This move would enable replacement of the dab page at Samuel Johnson TonyTheTiger 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

just a reminder steve, there is a 3revert rule. I know we've both broken it in the past, but i'm going to try to be civil about the 3 revert rule as I am with everything else. --Buridan 04:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. I hope one day we find our way out of this edit war. So, here's to civility and may we both hold it dear. Best wishes, Steve 08:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

It would be helpful in the future if when you revert edits that removed Ayn Rand in addition to others, that you just revert the whole edit instead of editing Rand back into the pagespace. Since your justifications are that Rand deserves to be there because there are sources to justify it, and since the same is true for many of the others removed, there is no real reason to be selective. thanks. - Sam 05:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam. It is out of respect for the intentions of the previous editor(s) that I don't revert an entire page. I just make the changes I think are important. Also, sometimes I agree with some of the edits made by the previous editor and don't want to change them. It would sure be easier to just revert it all to the previous page! I hadn't imagined that this would be a problem. Can you tell me how it causes a problem? I suspect that I'm not understanding something here. Thanks. Steve 05:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steve, I checked my contributions to look into the deletion of the citation you mentioned. I think it happened when I reverted a strange deletion on the part of an anonIP. Go right ahead and add it, or I will add it tomorrow sometime - as long as something is verifiable then its kosher. As for my original comment (above), I do not think that your reason of 'respect' adequately defends selectively returning Ayn Rand's name to lists and not others that have similar verifiable citations. Be bold!, reverting an edit in part is no more or less respectful/disrespectful than reverting an edit en totum. I think the only problem I have is that the edits you made could've been more useful than they were - in that they could've corrected more material, and that leads me to see the selectivity as evidence of a narrow-sighted agenda. I feel strongly about Assuming Good Faith, so I wanted to let you know of my thoughts, so that the issue could be aired, cleared up, and that we could move on. - Sam 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam. There was an edit that removed both George Elliot and Ayn Rand from the list of female philosophers. In that case I restored Rand but not Elliot because I agreed with deleting Elliot (extraordinary person, but as far as I know not a philosopher). On another edit, User 70.23.44.82 removed 13 names from the list of Twentieth Century philosophers. In that case you are correct - my focus was on a narrow-sighted agenda and I was being lazy. I didn't want to perform the due diligence of verifying that those 12 other names had valid citations and should be restored. And I see that it left it to you to do that work and then to restore them. Sorry about that. But I do believe it is important to temper boldness with respect. Trashing someone else's edit is one of the sources of ill-will and edit wars we see around here. I'll put more effort into future reverts and make a comment explaining any partial reverts. I appreciate your explanation. Steve 08:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is important to temper boldness with respect; there are times when I exhibit the tendencies of a strict exopedian. It was my pleasure to explain my comment, and I thank you for the time you took to respond to my questions. Be well. - Sam 08:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valliant reference

I put the Valliant reference in the body of the NB article to reflect the article on Barbara, which has a reference in the body of the text as well as the criticisms. Can you tell me a reason the two should be different? Both articles should mention the Valliant criticism in a similar way I think, so that means editing the BB article or placing a reference in the body of the NB article. Endlessmike 888 13:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I made a reply on your user-talk-page. Steve 16:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editting other people's discussion posts

Steve, please do not edit other people's posts in discussion, respond to them, yes, make an argument yes, but do not make changes to people's posts that might cause someone to misunderstand their opinion. Your edit of the discussion of the philosophy nav template did that. The creator and maintainer of the template's position is clear, you edited that person to match your viewpoint. That is unconscionable. --Buridan 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ahh, sorry for the deletion but that was because you put your comment in the page header instead of in the discussion. i did not see it. it is now back in the leader, it should probably be at the bottom of the page, with the other new arguments.--Buridan 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw his page header's notation "Add to this..." and took it for permission to make changes. And I used the strike-through to avoid erasing his origonal intentions. But as I said on your user talk page - my intentions were good, but editing someone else's comments is always a bad idea. And from your last reply I take it that your intentions were also good and that you didn't intend to erase my comments (I put them back). Best wishes, Steve 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also put an apology on the template creator's user talk page. Steve 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Hey, it's fine. Add marxism in there if you want, but you should probably wait until the discussion reaches an OK decision. I'm not too keen on having it in the template myself, if my opinion coutns for anything. I just really don't think we should delete Randianism (edit: from the list of no-insert topics, I mean). That issue has been stamped into the ground repeatedly, not just by myself.

BTW. Please understand that my usage of "Randianism" is not supposed to be insulting. I just absolutely refuse to call it "Objectivism". I think that's a nasty propaganda trick. That philosophy is far from "objective" in any sense of the word. It's totally subjective. -- infinity0 11:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Rand, focus on verification of notability

With respect to your Rand conflicts with Buridan, keep in mind that Wikipedia policies have been honed on disputes just like yours. The two policies which cover inclusion are Wikipedia:Notability, and Verification of that notability. Here's a link to a cover story from Time Magazine in which Ayn Rand is referred to as a philosopher: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995368,00.html. That makes her pretty notably a philosopher. There are thousands of mentions of her all over the internet, so I suggest you get digging on the most widely circulated and reputable publications & websites. And get to know those policies like the back of your hand! The Transhumanist 05:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I almost forgot... In your inclusion debates you show a tendency to argue in one-on-one discussions rather than provide evidence (external links). Once evidence has piled up, in the form of link references, to a certain volume of links to reputable publications, it becomes pretty hard to ignore. Just keep providing more links to notable references until the threshhold for notability has been surpassed to the satisfaction of the community. When you are in deadlocked one-on-one discussions, you should seek to bring in neutral 3rd-parties by posting at Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Third opinion, etc. The Transhumanist (AWB) 06:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philosophy navigation

I've asked the sysadmin who protected the page to unprotect it. Please resist the temptation to add Objectivism until consensus has been reached in the discussion. It would also be a good idea to not revert anyone on that template. Bring it to the talk page. It's much more diplomatic. Once consensus has been reached in the discussion, or lack of consensus is clear, a sysadmin may be prevailed upon to enforce the outcome of the discussion.

Just remain civil and everything will work out okay in the long run. Buridan is only hurting himself by disregarding the accepted way of resolving disputes. Also, it is best to remain completely relaxed and civil in all debates. There's no need to engage in witwars or rhetoric flinging. Argumentation solves nothing. Only citations can break a deadlock like this.

Now that you know that edits concerning Rand will likely be opposed, it makes perfect sense to shift most effort with respect to Rand into searching for citations. My recommendation is to spend minimal time on debates - just enough to express your position, and no time on forcing your changes to an article. Defending long-existing material from being changed is fine, but is best kept to one revert per day per article, as long as you are hunting down citations in the meantime.

Citations are the only thing that can clarify such a situation. To continue to argue in the face of lack of citations is fruitless. Therefore either get the citations or walk away. Anything else is a waste of time. Wikipedia is vast. There are many other things to edit.

You can defend an article against changes which lack consensus forever. That is, an argument and edit war will go and on, and you will be stuck spending your time on defense. Thus the emphasis on citations. How many citations have you found today? The Transhumanist 07:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm declining your request for semi-protection, because I don't see an edit by an anonymous user in the last two-plus weeks. If IP vandalism becomes a problem there, by all means, let me know. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the same thing - just two IP edits in the last few days, and nothing before that. You can always file a request at WP:RFPP, though - my word certainly isn't final! | Mr. Darcy talk 20:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We're supposed to be very conservative when it comes to protecting pages, and it's possible I err too much in that direction. Anyway, let me know if the vandalism gets worse. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity searching with Google

Google supports wildcard searches. The wildcard is an asterisk, which represents one word (Google doesn't support character wildcards or partial-word wildcards as of yet). A special trick using wildcards can be used to conduct proximity searches: use quotes. For example, "Ayn Rand * influential" will return results in which Ayn Rand and influential appear exactly two words apart. There's a tool on my tool page for automatically searching for word pairs that are three or fewer words apart (it submits the required multiple wildcard queries for you). I hope this helps. The Transhumanist 07:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayek

Go ahead and add him to the Other section for now, but that section really needs to go (perhaps after we settle on a new inclusion criterion). Special, "disputed" article sections shouldn't be created with the explanation that the editors can't agree on a certain point. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New RFC

I have initiated an RFC on you as a step in dispute resolution. You may add your response under the "Response" section. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rand

I have added my view to the RfC page, as per your request.

This is a stab in my ideology's back, of course. Still, I take comfort in the fact that the event which most compelled me toward social democracy, and against liberterianism, was reading Atlas Shrugged. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Steve, I know it's hard to keep a level head in these kinds of "wars". You should've seen how frustrated I got over at philosophy last year sometime. Its easier to be objective when one isn't involved in the conflict. :) KSchutte 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, it's been over 48-hours, and the RfC only has one complainer/certifier (Simoes pulled out). Therefore, I believe you can ask an admin to delete the RfC. By the way, I came out of wikibreak to answer my messages, and when I saw your RfC, stayed a little longer in order to add my 2 cents. I'm going back on vacation now, and hopefully I'll see you around when I return in February. The Transhumanist 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for taking the time to speak out on that RfC - it was an awful experience and it felt good to read your remarks. Second, I agree that they are equivocating on an ambiguous use of the word 'influential', but there is more to it. I'd say it goes deeper than semantics. I think it is a matter of honesty. Not for all of the opponents, just the very vocal minority. Rand's work generates a lot of passion and when some people are don't like something they become manipulative to get rid of it - trying to use the rules of the local context to diminish or eliminate. Some people believe that words are just tools of rhetoric and there is no such as thing as truth - only the arguments winners and losers. If you get one of those, who also has no innate sense of fairness, and doesn't like Rand - that's a problem. Well, I just came here to thank you, so I'll climb down off my soap box and wish you a happy vacation and look forward to your return. Steve 18:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear those things get deleted automatically, so I requested that it be deleted. It had gone over the 48-hour limit for endorsement, and Simoes pulled his endorsement. It's gone now, so you can be glad that's over with. The Transhumanist 10:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'm glad that's over. I appreciate your help. Steve 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rand as a philosopher

More evidence for Rand as a philosopher. Darryl Wright's article "Ayn Rand on Ethical Objectivity" will appear in the journal Social Philosophy and Policy in early 2008. http://www.objectivistconferences.com/ocon2007/index.php?pagename=faculty Scroll down to the bottom to see for yourself. There is also the Allan Gotthelf article on her theory of concepts in the Review of Metaphysics, if you didn't know. Endlessmike 888 17:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Rand is kind of first in this way - achieving astonishing levels of popularity in the public arena (over 300,000,000 books sold) and then working into academic circles. The big problem in wikipedia are those people that don't play by the rules - either due to a childish kind of arrogance or in some cases just plain dishonesty. If there aren't enough people to rise up and correct those wrong-doers, things won't get better. Maybe we should do articles for wikipedia on some of these articles? Steve 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A general "Ayn Rand in Academia" may be more appropriate. It's pretty hard to say that the Review of Metaphysics (the Gotthelf paper) and Cambridge University Press (the Smith Book) don't count as philosophy sources. There is also the Objectivist sponsored conferences which had as either presenters or commentators Peter Railton, A.P. Martinich, and David Sosa. They seem to think Objectivism is a philosophy. It would be so much easier in these "Is Rand a philosopher?" debates to point to one link with all the info already spelled out, and then move on from there.

Of course, there is also the problem of the one or two persons who change articles anonymously and are too cowardly to even enter into discussion about their changes. Endlessmike 888 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well stated.

It certainly hurts Wikipedia that more people don't step forward and demand a stop to the anon IP hit-and-run delete editors. The whole idea of attacking one name with such religious fervor creates a negative attitude and ugly place to work that is so unnecessary. The other real harm done is where people wrap themselves into intellectual pretzles trying to make the WP policy support a position that has no real basis except for their personal likes.

I think your idea of "Ayn Rand in Academia" is an excellent one! Steve 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be important, in such an article, to emphasize the mainstream penetration of Rand into academia, rather than "movement" publications and institutions. By this I mean for example the Smith book, Sciabarra's book, and Gotthelf's paper, along with that conference I referenced. On the other hand, the various fellowships for the moral foundations of capitalism, along with JARS, should not be included. The BB&T fellowships, it could be argued, only show that private individuals are financing Rand studies, rather than Rand actually penetrating academia. With JARS (at least presently), it is a movement journal, publishing material written by persons within the Rand influenced libertarian movement, which half of the larger Objectivist movement boycotts. I think we want an article that shows Randists of various stripes influencing and penetrating the mainstream academy (as well as the mainstream academy e.g. Nozick engaging with Rand), rather than Randists creating their own parallel institutions. Thus Founders College would be similar to JARS, though I'm not certain whether or not Founders intends to be Objectivist in any way.

The other concern would be that such an article would be a prime target for vandalism and whatever one wants to call what people like Buridan or the banned Alienus do. There would also be the problem of well intentioned though over-zealous persons wanting to pimp their favorite Objectivists on the page, as well. I'm thinking of whoever went around labeling every Objectivist intellectual as a phiosopher.

I think it would be valuable enough to deal with the associated hassles. Maybe I'll write up something this weekend if you don't beat me to it.

There should also be an Ed Locke article, since I'm thinking of it. But one thing at a time. Endlessmike 888 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is about Ayn Rand in Academia, I would have at least four major sections in the article (not counting 'notes' 'other links' etc.):

1)"Introduction"
2)"The Academy Examines Rand" - for mainstream academicians and their sources that mention Rand but have no connections to 'the movement' as such,
3)"Academic Work by Rand Supporters" for high quality scholarly work done in parallel to the academy.
4)"Other References" to hold all of the hotly contested items.

Dealing with vandalism and persistent critics shouldn't be any different than on other pages. Just make a point of explaining the sections - their differences and purposes.

How many books?

Wow. You wouldn't happen to have a citation for that, would you? It may come in handy. The Transhumanist 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic philosophy topics

I've done some more work on the list. The ism section and basic concept section still leave something to be desired. First, their scope (titles) overlap. Second, those sections are just a jumble of terms. If we could give some meaningful structure to assist in putting the various terms into perspective, that would be fantastic. Any suggestions or help you could provide would be most appreciated. The Transhumanist 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A favor to ask

A project I started awhile back (as an anon IP), which I've been working on ever since (as Go for it!, and now under my current nym), is the Glossary of philosophical isms. I'm very excited about it, because thanks to the occasional contributor, its completion is within view. I was wondering, if you wouldn't mind helping complete it. It doesn't have to be done all at once; adding one definition per Wikipedia session, or so, would be a great help and would speed things up immensely.

The help needed is to fill in missing definitions. The method I've been using is to follow the link of each term, and cut and paste its definition from the lead section of its article. I then edit it down (or even rewrite it) to be less wordy and easier to follow, and I make a judgment as to the size of the entry based on the understanding it presents. For major and difficult terms, I try to keep them down to six lines. Others down to 3 or 4.

The page has already surpassed similar lists on the internet, and is therefore the most comprehensive list of its kind available on-line (that I know of). When it is completed, it will be an extremely useful learning aid to students of philosophy. One subtle advantage is that the lead paragraphs from which the definitions are taken diverge (grammatically) over time, so that the glossary will eventually provide explanations which complement rather than merely repeat the main article on each term. This is important since articles often degrade over time (the flagship article Philosophy being a good example), while the entries of this glossary have proven to be quite stable. And it is often helps understanding to get an alternate explanation of something.

When it is done, a general glossary of philosophy terms would be a good next step. But I've been holding off on starting one until the ism glossary is complete. I was also thinking that to be truly useful a general glossary could follow the same order of presentation as the terms in the List of basic philosophy topics. So I've also been holding off on creating the Glossary of basic philosophy topics until the basic list is refined (it will provide a ready-made list of terms to add definitions to).

Well, I hope you decide to join in on this useful project. I've been enjoying it, and just thought I'd invite you to join in on the fun.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 05:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: If there is anyone you know who might also like to help on the glossary, please invite them! Feel free to reuse the invitation above. --TT

The question page

I jotted down every question I could think of off the top of my head. I also happen to have Russel's little book, and got to reading it. I see you plucked the title to chapter 15 out of there. I reformatted the page, and moved the Google survey to the talk page. Oh yeah, and I added a quote to the quote section which I've come across recently. Feel free to rework it all in any way you see fit. There isn't much rhyme nor reason to any of it, yet. And I'm sure there's a better logical order, or scheme, for organizing the questions.

There are probably more formal or official versions of many of the questions. I just don't happen to know what they are.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 05:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there life after Wikipedia? Er, I mean, death...

To support the question on the questions page, I've added an "Is there life after death?" section to the article Afterlife. Please proofread it if you have time, and let me know if you think it is an adequate treatment of the question? I didn't know of any specific philosophers who dealt with the issue, so if you do, please add them. I hope you like it. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 08:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ToK response

I left a response for you at Talk:Tree of Knowledge System. EPM 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Branden rv

Removing sources (cites) probablly isn't a good idea unless there is consensus to remove them, take a look at WP:NPOV for more info.

Crazynas^t 07:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page, to keep everything together.

Crazynas^t 10:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nathaniel Branden

Hi there Steve. Thanks for the message on my talk page. I'll have to go back through the history of the article to see what sources have been deleted during the revert war. Haven't checked that yet. Regarding the rest of the issues you raised, please see my reply on the article's talk page. Best wishes, Pia

Steve, the reason I was not arguing on the article talk page for the inclusion of the phrase unaccredited institution is that I agree with you that, "listed like that, by itself, with no explanation", as you state on my talk page, the phrase may make it appear that "Branden and every other CGI graduate has an invalid degree". However, I disagree with you about how to make the sentence a "Neutral Point of View" statement. Keeping the school's status permanently banned from the NB article may not be the best solution. The statement that the school is unaccredited is factually correct and it is attributed to a published source (and also verifiable on the government of CA's website) . In addition, there is currently no consensus among editors of the NB article to keep the issue out of the article, since CRCulver argues that he feels that the facts regarding accreditation are important and need be mentioned. Rather than being "edit wared" over, the sentence needs to be expanded and the seemingly contradictory statement explained. "How can people have PhDs in psychology (or get licensure) from unaccredited schools?" is the first question that will pop up in a reader's mind. Well, the answer is, "They can in California". I feel that dodging this issue by categorically removing it from the article could be viewed by a casual reader and by an uninvolved editor as a maneuver performed to hide "uncomfortable" facts on behalf of NB and that would not seem to be in the best interest of the Wikipedia readership from a neutral point of view. The preferable solution, in my opinion, would be to add, either as a footnote or in the text itself, that according to the Board of Psychology in the state of California, the school's program is California approved, and in addition, California allows graduates to sit for the Board of Psychology and the Board of Behavioral Sciences licensing exams. I am not that familiar with NB, so I don't plan to get involved in the expansion of this article. What I would suggest though, is that a reliable source is added regarding NB's PhD thesis and regarding the status of the PhD degree at CGI at the time he attended, especially if your argument is that the current source is making the article appear unbalanced and POV. Best, Pia 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You understood one of my points quite well - that "listed like that, by itself, with no explanation" gives a false impression and that is wrong.

But I feel you have not grasped my other points:

1) you go on to treat the school as if "accredited" and "unaccredited" are simple yes/no and mutually exlusive terms. The school has "accreditation" of some kinds and in other areas it is "approved" - it is a complex issue that involves various state of california departments and various non-profit organization recognitions of a degree and licensing (which are related but separate issues).

This is NOT an issue that should be in this article unless there is a scandal or report of wrong-doing outside of what an editor creates with that selective "listed by itelf, with no explanaion" mode. There is no NOTABILITY. Please notice that no one else with an article about them, whether a psychologist or not, has this kind of reporting about their university (unless it has been a subject of some kind of scandal.) Where is CrCulver's concern for the accreditations of all of the other professionals listed in Wikipedia?

You mention the question of "How can people have PhDs in psychology (or get licensure) from unaccredited schools?" popping up in peoples minds. Well, the answer is, "If the state authorities that regulate this field "Approve" of a school for the purposes of a particular degree or license - that's the answer. "Accredited" versus "Approved" are technical differences that don't achieve notability in an article on Branden.

Now, given that we are talking about Branden, the question becomes, "What does the difference of going to an approved versus accredited school mean with Branden?" The answer is none. It is too trivial a difference. Are we reporting the color of socks he favors (assuming they aren't bizarre colors) or whether the school has an serious athletic department (Which makes a difference on Western Regional Accreditation but not on State of California approval)? No, those aren't notable. Thousands of students graduate from those approved schools - specifically with the state's approval - and they get licensed with the state's approval. And THAT is a fact and it means there IS NO notablility in a statement that Branden graduated from a "unaccredited school" - and by itself, when added to the fact of the states approval it amounts to libel of a living person.

2) The source for all of this is a book making a POV attack on the Objectivist movement (Don't take my word for it, go read it) - it does the exact same thing - puts "unaccredited" out there in a way that is out of context and false (because the school does have some accreditations and other it does not - the accreditations it does not have are covered by approvals. The book doesn't say that). Why does CrCulver insist on only showing one side of this issue or in some way putting in a statement whose purpose it making it appear Branden's credentials are invalid or questionable? Did you notice that he put the statement back in?

Listing "unaccredited" by itself is wrong beyond any question - either spell it all the way out in all of the complexity or leave it all out. That is all I've ever asked for. You delete a statement if it is not notable and you ban it forever if it is inserted in such a way as to constitute libel. Steve 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Steve, accreditation status is not that complicated, unless you hope to push to the forefront any self-announced “accrediting agency" in order to compete with the established agencies that are recognized by the government for this purpose. See for example the American Psychological Association's FAQ page Frequently Asked Questions about Accreditation in Psychology. In real life, it's pretty simple to find out who is and who is not accredited, actually. All you have to do to find out if your school is accredited is to apply for a federal student loan, or if you have already graduated, all you have to do is to try to get a job within the federal government or with some other public agency outside California, while also applying for full membership in American Psychological Association. Or how about trying to be appointed to the medical staff of a hospital outside California or get listed in the National Register of Health Service Providers? Or if you are a patient, how about trying to get your managed care organization/insurance company/preferred provider organization to reimburse you after you have been to see an individual whose degree is from those "libelously" labeled "unaccredited schools"? ;) Another way to find out who is accredited and who is not is to turn to the information supplied by the authorities that approve the programs and the right to offer degrees at the educational institutes, namely the representatives for the government of the United States. Perhaps you did not notice the wording at the California Board of Psychology's fact sheet named "Unaccredited California Approved Schools: A History and Current Status Report", published online at the government website for the State of California? Or are you are saying that they are "wrong beyond any question" to call the CGI an "unaccredited California approved school"? Well, how about using the term offered by a member of the press then, such as John Thomas' in The National Psychologist, Vol. 8, No. 2, March/April, 1999 , which is headlined "Brouhaha brewing over nonaccredited programs in California". Pia 01:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC) (Addendum: Steve, forgot to ask, which agencies or organizations do you refer to above as having granted the California Graduate Institute accreditation in psychology? Pia 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I invite you to read the Talk page before editing

Steve, you have decided to jump into the article Scientific data archiving without reading the Talk page. As a result, you are evidently unaware of the discussions that have gone on and are presenting a common misconception about Pseudoscience. I would like to be fully aware of the issues before editing. Please read the Talk page prior to making any more edits. Thank you.RonCram 01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the talk page. You are avoiding the issue I brought up. There are some truly egregious examples of bad papers and of disgusting researchers that push a point of view and hide their data to get away with it. I know this and so do you. But if you keep using the term pseudoscience where it is not appropriate you aren't helping make things better - you are making things worse. It is an inappropriate tactic. To be a pseudoscience it has to first NOT be science (done right or done wrong). It has to be non-science. Then it makes sense to talk about it "pretending to be science". That is the heart of the issue. If you keep clinging to some 'technicality' of wording on the Pseudoscience article that ignores the fundamental and core meaning of the word then you need to think again. Think Astrology. Researchers that hide data to reduce reproducibility are committing fraud - not doing pseudoscience. Anybody that wants to be a champion of science needs to show proper respect for the use of words. Steve 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand and collective rights

Whether Rand believed they existed or not, they do. This is hardly my personal opinion, it's a basic tenet of political science and differentiates between freedoms and rights; freedoms are individual, rights are collective. The Gospel of St. Ayn is not the arbiter of reality, even if she calls it "Objective" with a capital letter. SmashTheState 13:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on the Rand article, and you seem to have elected yourself Rand's personal hagiographer. You are aware that while Wikipedia may be owned by a Randroid, it doesn't mean Rand is immune to honest reporting in her article, right? SmashTheState 10:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours

For a 3 revert rule violation on List of publications in philosophy. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Laissez-faire

It looks like you broke 3RR on Laissez-faire, even after I warned you not to. I could be a cry-baby about this and probably get you blocked. Again. But I'm just going to point out that, even though you broke the rules, you still lost. Maybe next time you should just give up before you start. You can't hide the Truth. FreddyTris 06:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing Nathaniel Branden

You must stop vandalizing Nathaniel Branden. No matter how many times you say so, it cannot be libel to say the truth. His PhD did not come from an accredited institution, and saying otherwise is simply dishonest. Perhaps you first reverted out of ignorance or overreaction, but I cannot assume good faith any longer, becuase your error has been corrected many times now, including in the comment by Pia on this very page that you deleted without ever addressing. I also see that you deleted other complaints about your bad behavior, so this seems to be a pattern of yours. Regardless, you must stop immediately. You have the moral low ground and are outnumbered. Please do the reasonable thing and step down. FraisierB 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is the vandal and, yes, what you are doing is libel (no matter how many times you say otherwise). His PhD is valid and approved and accepted, implying otherwise is libel - and that is what you do when you elevate the word "unaccredited" to prominence. I would agree with you if this were a diploma mill, but it is not. I would agree with you if the degree were a sham, but it is not. The state is happy with it. His credentials aren't in question except by those bring up this non-point for POV reasons. Any information about the school belongs on the school page and not on Branden's. And by the way, I didn't delete the comment from Pia, or anything else, I archived the entire page which had become to long, and put a link to the archive at the top of this page. As usual, you jump to a bad conclusion and then turn it into a personal attack. You have the moral low-ground because we both know who is trying to make Branden look bad while pretending to engage in NPOV editing. I assure you, I will never step down in the face of people committing libel against a living person and thinking they can get away with it because of technicalities. Read the quote from Jimmy Wales I put under Pia's last comment on Branden's talk page. Steve 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The school is unaccredited. The statement is not libel. And this discussion is over. FraisierB 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must remind you that, if you revert now, you will be in violation of WP:3RR. I looked it up and I even know where to report you. Do not force me to do this. FraisierB 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rr rule does not apply when you are libeling a living person. Steve 02:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

. stating that a school is unaccredited is not lible. You are also edit warring with 3 other users.Rlevse 03:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Branden talk

Steve, I came to give you a friendly warning about 3RR and personal attacks on Buridan. (That he has an axe to grind.) I see that I'm too late about the former. Concerning Buridan, yes, I see that he has an axe to grind against Rand, but he does apparently stick to the "letter of the law" here. Just before I came here to your talk page, I posed a question to you on the Branden talk page. Originally, you had a point, but what is defamatory about saying the school is "unaccredited, but state-approved for graduates to take the licensure exam"? If you can convince me, you have an ally, especially since I'm more a fan of Branden than of Rand. So I shouldn't be hard to convince. PS: You block doesn't prevent you from commenting here. Otheus 13:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve I have been watching this one and the 3RR's and reading about Branden and Rand, trying to catch up both on the subject and on edit wars. Mine is an offer of support. If I can be so presumptuous, how can I help? The List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning and related pages is my next step, where the California Graduate Institute is not listed. One of my confusions in this matter is that the person who is defamed is the one who can begin an action for damages in a US court. If someone is slandered in a wiki article, do they need to be involved in defending themselves or can an editor do so by proxy?--Ziji 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check user procedure

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

FrasierB, FreddyTris, Lancombz

In case you hadn't heard, you helped sucesfully expose this person as a sock-puppeteer by starting the RFCU. Thanks!Ethan a dawe 13:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure. :-)

I was looking at the comments on the FreddyTris talk page - and in my mind I was seeing this sock with a little face drawn on it and it is on a person's hand and they are making it talk, using a high squeaky voice, saying, "You're a second- hander" - too ironic for words. What a loser.

Steve 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, that's a good outcome and well done you. I'm guessing they will be back. Just ask if I can assist - much for me to learn--Ziji 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your words of wisdom re Branden. My affection for his work is enlarged. I began with 'If you could hear what I cannot say' in 1983/4 and am still using some of his stems with couples. I will miss you on the clinpsychg page. What's your book about?--Ziji 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]