User talk:Peterdjones
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Peterdjones! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:
- Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
- When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
- Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
- Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!
And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, Peterdjones, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 02:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits to Quantum mind
I have reverted your edits to this article. Your zeal in adding to it is commendable (you are certainly being bold, but given the large changes you made to the article, there must be consensus before the material is added back. Your edits also need to be put in a form acceptable unde WP:NPOV and must represent quantum mechanics correctly. Please see Talk:Quantum mind. Michaelbusch 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your addition to What the Bleep Do We Know?
I have removed the link you added. Wikipedia prohibits linking to copyright violation (see Wikipedia:Copyvio), and a complete transcript of the movie extents past fair use unless permission has been given by the copyright holder. Michaelbusch 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: David Deutsch page. See also: simulated reality
Fair enough - I've restored the link. An anon had added that link to a few dozen pages where it didn't really belong, in an apparent attempt to make the article seem more important. I tried to leave it in a couple where it seemed to fit, but slipped up & missed Deutsch's connection. --Davepape 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Simulated reality
Thanks for all the good editing work!
-Lord Volton, III, of House Florian.
[edit] philes and phobes
Hi Peter,
you left a signature at talk:qualia, but no comments. Was that on purpose? --Trovatore 00:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Materialism etc..
Hi Peterdjones. Thanks for your contributions to Self refuting ideas. But we can't put un-referenced arguments into WP articles. You need to say "but philosophers such as X argue that.." NBeale 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Peterdjones. I'm afraid your links to SEP on Foundationalism still don't work. Can you fix please. NBeale 22:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Computability of physics
Peter, I think this section can be edited down to 2-3 paragraphs. I'll give you the first crack at it.
Less is more.
Lordvolton 14:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No. I am not editing down referenced, rigorously argued material. Why don't you edit down something else. "Humanity itself" could be edited down to the sentence "the creators of the simulation we are in, according to the Simulation Hypothesis, are not necessarily human", for instance. Or "Religious Arguments" could be edited down to nothing.1Z 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding edits made to Materialism
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Peterdjones! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Noumenon
This material left on my talk page is reproduced here for convenience, with my response below. ... Kenosis 18:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Please explain which specific editorial policies you were referring to in your decision to revert.1Z 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
'Noumenon ... is "defined" as "thing-in-itself"'.
Do you have a source for that?1Z 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Placing section on Noumena and the Thing-in-itself under criticisms with an OR tag)"
1. Its not criticism, it is explanation.
2 If you can source it, it isn't OR, and you know that I can source it, because there were many citations of primary source material in the version you reverted. I notice that you have still made no effort to source any of your stated opinions on the subject.
"Kant's usage is why the word is in our lexicon today".
I know. I stated so in my revision of the lead which you reverted. That Kant was not using "noumenon" in the classical sense was criticism made by Schopenhauer, as the article states. Kant himself aludes to the fact that he is using it to mean "not sensible" rather than "inteligible":
"If we are pleased to name this object noumenon for the reason that its representation is not sensible,.."
You attitude is most unhelpful. Your changes do not have editorial justification as AFAICS.
1Z 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Excuse me? What !Z attempted to apply to the article is original-research-based analysis of Kant, attempting to argue, based upon Kant's Critique, that "Ding-an-sich" (thing in itself) is not what Kant meant. I don't have time to give a lesson in Kant, but the assertion shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the context and influence of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's original research, and that's why I placed it under "criticisms" and put up an "original research" tag. That has nothing to do with "attitude" as you say here.
-
Briefly, why I reverted the newly written lead earlier on was that it started with an etymology rather than a definition. Currently the reads fairly reasonably again (after your last edits), so this time I left it as it stands. I removed the sentence alleging that "thing-in-itself" is a controversial interpretation, and as I said, placed the subsection on the same issue under criticisms with an OR tag, pending further discussion and analysis. ... Kenosis 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
One more thing for the moment. I did not assert that noumenon is defined as "thing-in-itself". Many editors have had their hands on this, and I support changing that to a more appropriate definition. The current definition is a reasonable choice in my estimation. ... Kenosis 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bot
Was that Sysyphus? or Sisyphus. You should see the debate over this bot and category at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20. My objection is it's intrusive and highly inaccurate, and editors are entitled to make article-by-article decisions what their "citation-needed" policies will be. Now all of them, or virtually all of them, are labeled "February 2007". In addition, the whole thing involved an administrative override of an earlier community decision to do away with the category out of which the bot operates. Anyway, nice contributions recently in these philosophy-related articles; my compliments!. ... Kenosis 01:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reverts
We discussed at length the Occam's Razor criticisms in the discussion page. You might not agree with the criticisms, but they're legit. I've also asked you to edit down the Computability of Physics material which is neither concise or to the point.
So far you've refused.
You need to edit it down or let others edit it.
Lordvolton 04:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
They are legit in your opinion. However, you were not able to make a clear case.
I am not obligated to acceded to your requests. You have not made a case based on the wikipedia editorial guidelines. You have not explained why Computability of Physics should be edited down, when there is so much more material in the article. You have shown no interest whatsoever in my other suggestions about shortening the article. You edits always leave the article a little shorter, and a lot more positively inclined to the SH. The conclusion is obvious.1Z 18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- My issue is not the content as much as the format and style. Simply state the issue and state the criticisms and then let people come to their own conclusion. And omit, omit, omit when possible. Less is more. Lordvolton 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The subject is complex and presentation is concise under the circumstances. I am not aware that wikipedia has any guidelines on brevity other than keeping a page below 50k.1Z 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Regarding edits made to Quale
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Peterdjones! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edit to Metaphyics
I think you may have missed the point that the British "constitution" is unwritten.1Z 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually, I understood that. I felt that the examples were too specific, particularly due to cultural qualifiers. Try to find examples that are not culturally bound. --NightSky 15:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for improving the unreferenced paragraph I had deleted
I noticed you restored and improved the unreferenced paragraph in the criticism section of New Age ( diff ). I'm generally a skeptic, so I had no issue with the point being made, but the section was vague and unsupported and I didn't have time to research it and fix it. With your improvements and reference it reads very well now, thanks for your help. Parzival418 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Joseph Margolis
Will add to Margolis, explaining robust relativism, if you could help with formatting my Margolis page. Relationalism is often said to be "the true for of relativism" precisely because it is so easy to defeat. Agreed, many valued logics are not per se relativism BUT robust relativism IS a many valued logic.
Pete Muckley
Thanks so much for fixing up the Margolis page. Will get back to Relativism as soon as I can.
Pete Muckley
[edit] 3RR:Peter Hitchens
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. You are in danger of being blocked for violating WP:3RR. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Yakuman 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] framing merge proposal
Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
