User talk:KSchutte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it sucks when people block dynamic IP addresses. KSchutte 28 June 2005 17:27 (UTC)

If there are any really good Philosophy talk pages of which I'm not aware, please let me know. KSchutte 5 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)

Contents 1 NBA Rosters 2 Wikiproject Aesthetics 3 Requesting comments on template alteration 4 Science pearls 5 Jimbo Wales to Attend San Diego Meetup on October 18 2005 6 Thanks for the note 7 History of Science 8 Philosophy of neuroscience 9 Requested template 10 Pages up for deletion 11 Philosophy 12 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy of mind 13 Thanks for Žižek comment 14 Santa Barbara Meetup 15 Sandbox 16 Thanks 17 Substance nihilism 18 Prometheanism 19 re New Criteria 20 Template:Academic 21 RFC on SteveWolfer 22 Mouse hint 23 Vindication of the Rights of Woman 24 Missing topics in philosophy 25 WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007 26 Characteristica Universalis

[edit] NBA Rosters

Sorry if it sounded like I wasn't happy with the template, but some creative feedback never hurts. Anyway, I love the way they just brighten up the largley boring team pages, and hopefully every team will have them soon enough. Harro5 06:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate constructive criticism. KSchutte 15:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Aesthetics

No problem. Even having a second name on the project is double previous progress! --Slac 21:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting comments on template alteration

Hello. I see you are using one or more of the User instruments templates in your Babel box. Inspired by some recent developments, I want to rework all the templates in there (including ones used on user pages), to make them more like the regular Babel templates. However, I thought I should hear from the people this would affect before actually doing it. Please weigh in at User:Ddawson/User instruments. Ddawson 11:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Wales to Attend San Diego Meetup on October 18 2005

Hello, Jimbo Wales will be in San Diego to attend OOPSLA and has agreed to come by and visit with the San Diego wikipedians. If you are interested, you will find more info on my talk page. Johntex\^talk 00:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the note

No caffeine. Just the blues (nasty breakup). I'll get over it. Go for it! 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Science

Please consider joining the proposed History of Science Wikiproject--ragesoss 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of neuroscience

Dear Kevin,

I'm an undergraduate student of philosophy (with a growing interest in philosophy of mind and cognitive sciences) and after reading your userpage I felt compelled to ask you for a little help, if you don't mind. Would you point out to me the best online references on the philosophy of neuroscience that you have met so far? Thank you in advance! Porcher 02:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested template

The template you requested has been created as {{Academia}}. --CBDunkerson 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! KSchutte 15:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pages up for deletion

There are two pages up for deletion: Revolution within the form and [[Cretan/Spartan connection. I ask for a vote to Transwiki. Thanks. WHEELER 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about these things, so I will abstain. KSchutte 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

The main problem that I can see with the philosophy article is that it is an article on the history of philosophy!! The section on branches of philosophy should be vastly expanded, there should be a discussion of the relationship of philosophy with modern science and perhaps religion, so as to illustrate the connections and contrasts. But this would mean that the whole article has to be rewritten. I think there was consensus against this or something.--Lacatosias 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason they think chipping away at what is there is going to be better than any rewrite from scratch, and they seem to be against a total rewrite in principle. As near as I can tell, you are one of only a very few involved in this debate (other than myself) who has any idea how to show what philosophy is. As is the state of nature, I suppose, the loudest and most chatty have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Here is my rewrite in progress, and if you'd be willing to support it when I'm finished with it, that wold be appreciated. KSchutte 16:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it as soon as I get the chance. Kripkenstein and I managed to work out a similar problem on the dualism (philosophy of mind) page. It was complete chaos with POV warnings and proposals for merger. We wrote up a version from scratch and just posted it in place of the other. It's far from perfect, but it hasn't been touched in about two weeks (now that's pretty stable!!). It seems to be the only way to do it: write a solid version and impose it.--Lacatosias 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still working on it, and probably won't be done for another couple of weeks, so no rush. KSchutte 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I can definitely support the framework and much of the substance of what you are proposing. It would represent a huge step in the right direction. So far as I can tell, it avoids the major defect of the current version: it is not a f+++ing history of philosophy article and it doesn't get bogged down in terminological nonsense. I have some reservations about the intro, but fundamentally I see where you're trying to go with this, that is provide the reader with some idea of what philosophy does and how it works. It's an interesting and original approach, based on methods mostly. My major concern though is that you have a history section at the end which seems to leave open the possibility of more historical-inflationism by suggesting that each period of history will be defined by its methods, goals, and so on. This could end up being huge and worse than the present version. I would strongly urge that history needs to be dealt with very summarily and then linked to the main article.

But my overall impression is positive. Good work!!--Lacatosias 09:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've gotten extremely tired (yes, already!!) of the nonsense on the talk page. From now on, I will discuss this case individually with yourself or others who seem to be quite serious about improving the article or I will just edit the article directly as I think appropriate. --Lacatosias 09:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the positive feedback. I'm in agreement with you that the people who give regular feedback over there are missing the point, and I've lost patience with trying to enlighten anyone. (An occassional person chimes in with the right idea, but most people with the right idea don't have the patience to tolerate the subsequent abuse.) I think this whole article turns on the Basic methods section, and once I feel comfortable with that, I think the rest of the article can be tinkered and toyed with at our discretion (the other areas aren't so important.

Let me do a little work on the history seection right now to let you know what I had in mind to put there. I think once you see where I'm aiming, you won't mind so much. KSchutte 16:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Of the people chiming in over there, I suggest we invite WhiteC, Shaggorama, and Simonides to come help out. They seem to recognize good changes and good ideas and would be helpful. (Rodasmith maybe, too, but I'm not as familiar with him.)

I also suggest that once we finish, we should get feedback from Mel Etitis and Dbuckner. These two seem to know quite a bit about philosophy, but they seem to resist certain changes to articles that are helpful and productive. I think they could recognize a good article if they saw it, but might not be so much help producing it.

The rest of the people over there are just "kids" or n00bs to philosophy, and ought not be listened to very much. KSchutte 17:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Part of the reason I am confused about the situation with this article right now, in fact, is that there now seem to be two fora for discussion (the talk page and Shaggorama's subpage), or three if you want to count this discussion. If you can get at least some of these other people involved, I can get an idea of what direction this article is really going in and might be able to help out. Let's get agreement on this pageor on Shaggorama's for a general outline at the very least. I don't know any of these people at all well (I've only been woking on the 'pedia for about two months and have been splitting my time between a whole bunch of areas). But I share your general view about who should be consulted, who are the "kids" playing around, etc..

--Lacatosias 12:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody! I'm a pessimist about big articles such as philosophy (or meaning; just check the last changes since two weeks ago). They are overedited, overdiscussed and get too "democratic". But I guess I would vote for Kevin's new article. Velho 02:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Velho. I used to think that way, but I'm not so sure any more. I've actually made only two significant edits to that article: I deleted all the lists and nonsense from the bottom (no complaints or opposition arose) and just this morning I deleted the

definition section and rewrote the lead to include a as general and widely accepted a definition of philosophy as possible (I'm waiting to see the reaction to this last move). If it goes through, there may be hope still for such a broad article to be salvaged. In any case, I have publicly stated my own preference for K's version. It may be necessary, however, to introduce any radical changes one step at a time. When you get to that stage, let me know and we'll explain and defend every significant change on the talk page.--Lacatosias 10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we're a good ways away from making that decision. I've still got plenty of work left to do before we even try to move it over there. KSchutte 07:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy of mind

Any comments by someone as knowledgable as yourself would certainly be appreciated. --Lacatosias 19:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Žižek comment

Y'know... Slavoj Whoever :-). Contemporary continental philosophy really ain't so bad. But apart from trying to lure you to "the dark side" of the philosophy discipline (or maybe away from the dark side, YMMV), I appreciate your comment on the philosophy project that is exactly to my way of thinking. I wanted to give you a bit of context that you may have missed though.

In general, I believe as you do that an academic biography, especially of a contemporary figure, should present the basic facts of where the thinker went to school, where s/he teaches, what books s/he has written, and from there some general description of what her/his contributions to philosophy are (or to another discipline, the same general idea applies). Criticisms, if they occur at all, should be limited to a few sentences, maybe a paragraph at most. It's not so much different even for a historical figure; I don't want the David Hume article filled with everything everyone disagreed with Hume about either. But obviously some particularly notable historical figures: Hegel, Marx, Aristotle, etc. have launched whole "schools", within which many disagreements exist, and those can be discussed in an encyclopedic fashion.

As the Žižek article existed at the time I wrote my initial call for outside comments to the philosophy wiki project, there were six or seven paragraphs of "Critique". All the critics presented are perfectly respectable members of the philosophy profession (though none particularly notable on their own merits, most don't have WP articles), but a WP bio isn't the place to reproduce everything that goes on in contemporary philosophy journals. In the meanwhile, however, I refactored the long criticism section into a separate article, and left just a concise paragraph introducing the idea that such criticism exists. Doing that seemed less likely to provoke the worst edit warring, and the criticism isn't inherently unencyclopedic, it just isn't notable in the context of an article on Slavoj Žižek himself (per the desiderata mentioned above). I'm not sure it succeeded given the flamefest by the anti-Žižek folks, but I suppose it might have been still worse.

So while I don't think Critiques of Slavoj Žižek needs to exist as an article, it doesn't seem to me unencyclopedic for it to exist, as such (given, of course, that the material in it meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and so on, which it pretty much seems to). There are lots of articles that I do not think need to exist: articles on some character in a video game, for example. But not great harm is done by a slightly superfluous article, as long as it is written in an objective fashion.

All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santa Barbara Meetup

Hello Kevin. Since you're a participant in WikiProject Santa Barbara County, I thought you might be interested in the Santa Barbara Wikipedia Meetup on Saturday 8 April. Please see that page for details. I hope to meet you there! Angela. 10:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

Category:Unsolved problems in philosophy

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for joining me in the Philosophy of Langage project. I just realized I had forgotten to put the page on my watchlist, so I just assumed it had been completely ignored. But I see you have taken the time to post some articles that need attention and topics that haven't been addressed. Thanks. This gives me some idea of the particular areas that I can focus on instead of fumbling around randomly looking for dead links and so on.--Lacatosias 07:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substance nihilism

I'm curious, when you say 'substance nihilism', do you mean mereological nihilism? Or is it completely unrelated?--Laplace's Demon 00:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prometheanism

I've put this article up for deletion. As someone who has worked with this article before, you may wish to weigh in.--Rosicrucian 14:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re New Criteria

I wanted to leave a note and apologise for trumpeting your mention of bias in the criteria for the list of major philosophers. It is tough to reconcile different ways of seeing things even when people are being honest. And there are one or two individuals that put their personal agenda ahead of honesty. So when I saw an honest evaluation of the proposed methodology I quickly picked it up the bias part and started using it like a club. What I should have done was just say, "Thanks" and then, "let's see if we can find ways to offset those biases." Much earlier, you poked good-natured fun at yourself for being the kind of person that would entire all those numbers of columns in a spreadsheet. I got a big grin over that - cuz it sounded so much like me. I appreciate the work you've done and I'll focus more on making an objective criteria work. SteveWolfer 18:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Academic

What was the purpose you contemplate for Template:Academic? I have proposed using in the manner described at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Designation_of_subjects_requiring_academic_expertise. Fred Bauder 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I see by looking at the history that it was intended to designate academic influence, but that you seem to have abandoned it. Please contact me if I have preempted something. Besides, I have to line up support for what I am doing, and may fail to do so. Fred Bauder 21:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on SteveWolfer

Message posted on multiple user pages: as you've been a figure to some degree in the multi-article, Rand-related dispute involving SteveWolfer, I thought it would be appropriate to let you know that I've initiated an RFC on him. You are invited to join in the proceedings if you are so inclined. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the talk page of the RfC - the one on Respect for sources. I wanted to let you know that it touched me to see that. And encouraged me to stay civil even when I feel like I'm under siege. So, without regard to our different positions on things, I respect that kind of integrity. Steve 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I added comments here and there on the RfC that make clear that you weren't part of the accusations against those who brought that RfC. Simoes has pulled out and withdrawn his certification of the RfC (presumably after reading my reply to the 'evidence').

And, an anon user deleted Rand from the 20th century philosopy page. I put her back, but I wanted you to know that it in response to a deletion and that I put sources on the list page and comments on the talk page. Take a look and see you can tolerate that, or want something different? Steve 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, that just makes it look silly. I'm removing the references. The main reason I deleted her from that page on that occassion was because you darn Randians didn't even put her in the right chronological order, and I was annoyed by that. I'd say that that page is a lot like List of publications in philosophy and Timeline of Western philosophers. Rand's presence is probably not acceptable by standards of objectivity, but shoring up the list with a good many more figures might make it acceptable. KSchutte 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it makes me more than a little irritated to suffer through that stupid RfC being accused of not using cites properly. Then you just delete the sources, call them silly and offer no help at all. Let's be real clear on this. When entries are disputed they must be given sources - that is what I've been told - that's what WP policy says. I will not be treated to RfC's for not sourcing (when I did but on the talk pages) and then have sources deleted when I do put them on the page. If you want to encourage civility, avoid edit wars, help others become better editors - you are going the wrong direction. I came to your page out of courtesy and for help - I don't feel like that's what I received. Steve 02:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that sources are good, but only if they don't stand out in a ridiculous fashion. Sources for lists should be done in ways similar to those I've done on the List of philosophers born in the twentieth century and similar pages. Giving sources for one entry and not the others just brings EVEN MORE attention to the person on the list who everyone is disputing whether she even belongs in the first place. She should be getting less attention, not more, than the others. KSchutte 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your point about standing out (no other name having a source), and for that page it may not matter (depending upon the AfD results). But, if the AfD fails and for other lists, I will have no choice but to add a source for Rand if she is deleted and I don't have the time to research all the others on a list. I will try to a format that doesn't stand out as much. Thanks, Steve 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mouse hint

Thanks for the note about the mouse spin wheel and the ctrl function ! --Childhood's End 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you found it! KSchutte 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vindication of the Rights of Woman

I noticed that on the talk page of the VRW you directed people to the Wollstonecraft page's "summary" of the VRW. I recently finished writing that Wollstonecraft page and, being a little burned out on Wollstonecraft, moved on to other pages for a while. But I have recently been reminded by several people that the VRW page is in dire straits. Would you be interested in collaborating on that page? Awadewit 12:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have managed to write the page now and it is up for GAC. Perhaps you would be willing to review it? The more informed and interested reviewers, the better! Thanks. Awadewit 11:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing topics in philosophy

Thanks for the redirects to the missing topics page - Skysmith 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characteristica Universalis

Hi KSchutte. I noticed you gave the Characteristica Universalis article a B rating. Could you please explain the reasoning for this rating further on the discussion page of the article. Sholto Maud 03:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Please take no insult. I've been rating philosophy articles since the Philosophy Assessment came online about a month ago, and I haven't wanted to give anything higher than a B-class for a couple of reasons. 1) I don't really understand the point of the A-class, and 2) Both GA-class and FA-class involves a review and my mission at present is only to identify and tag philosophy articles, leaving nomination for a later date (or for others to do). If you think the article should be listed as a Good or Featured article (and would like the editorial comments such a nomination provides), I recommend that you nominate the article yourself. If, counter to my assumptions, you think I've graded the article too high, feel free to lower the class of the article as you see fit. - KSchutte 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sholto_Maud"

• • • No insult taken - I'm more curious. I looked at the philosophy of worth/value assessment a few years ago, and it seemed to be very difficult to be "objective" when making any assessment, or when selecting ranking criteria for the value of philosphical thought & any writing about such. Hence my conclusion was that one could never adopt a neutral point of view in philosophy assessment. Do you know how Philosophy Assessment has managed to work with such isssues? Sholto Maud 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I agree that it is very difficult to be objective (what teacher could deny that?), so I admittedly haven't tried to take it too seriously. Mostly, I think the grading system is good for only a few things. First, it helps one to find articles related to one's area of interest that at least some people have read and found to be worth reading (Good and Featured articles). Next, it helps the editors keep track of relevant articles. There are, I'm sure, hundreds of philosophy-related articles out there that haven't been tagged, and when they are tagged, it is easier for potentially-interested editors to find them. Finally, I think the stub-classification is pretty useful. These are articles for which there is very little doubt that it needs a large amount of improvement, and I think exhibiting recognition of this fact makes philosophers on wikipedia look better to those who might otherwise misjudge us on the basis of our really bad articles. Really, though, because most articles are bad and even fewer cite any sources, the issues you raise haven't really come up. Sure, some of it is a guessing game, but I'm sure you know a failing paper when you see one!  :) I've also mostly avoided ranking the importance of the article topics, because those aren't really any battles in which I'm prepared to get involved. - KSchutte 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Thanks for your response. While I think the idea of a tag and grading system is useful I'm not convinced by the practicality. The notion that some people have read an article and find it to be worth reading is cool, but needs to be better - there really needs to be a voting system for articles, so that they get a star rating by those who can be bothered. This is like a psuedo-review system. In the absence of such I'm not sure how one can say that most articles in Wikipedia are bad. On the contrary I feel that they have a lot of good info that is not normally found in paper or electronic print. It probably depends on POV. Re: failing papers, I've seen papers that failed, that deserved to pass - failed on ideological grounds, so I'm not sure where that leaves things... Sholto Maud