User talk:271828182

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Heidegger

Excellent rewrite of the introduction! I looked at this article a few days ago and noted how gawd-aweful it was. You have made it intelligible. Thank you. Zeusnoos 13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A/A & C

Sure thing. Thanks for asking for my opinion. CHE 22:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No need for thanks on the AfD for that article. But you might be interested in commenting on its deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 17. I hope you'll continue to patrol and clean up the often nonsensical additions to Wikipedia's continental-philosophy articles – it's a big job. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Want to make a difference?

Language: http://uh.edu/~psaka/IEPlist.htm

Logic: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~klement/IEP/desired_logic_articles.txt

History of Analytic: http://www.malone.edu/2909

Continental: http://www.utas.edu.au/philosophy/staff_research/reynolds/IEParticles.html (note that existentialism and Bergson are already reserved, articles such as *Deleuze* could be suggested to JR)

Epistemology: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jbeebe2/DesiredIEP.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeusnoos (talk • contribs) 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC).




[edit] RfC on Lucas

I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page here. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all. Dbuckner 12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ForrestLane42. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good edits

On Analytic philosophy. I'd almost forgotten what those felt like. And splendid work on the problem editors page. I hadn't realised it had gone on so long. Dbuckner 19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Moving to Citizendium

Hi #27. I am almost certainly moving to Citizendium. There's a good community there, a number of good philosophers, and (apart from some questions I have as to whether the Ludvikus problem could theoretically occur there) seems a good home. I would very much welcome your involvement. Your writing is first class, and you have a firm grasp of areas of philosophy I have never even approached. Let me know if you have any questions about login &c. It really has got too mad here. Dbuckner 08:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK not moving yet

I checked Citizendium out, and there is no one there - yet. Meanwhile, thanks for the support on the philosophy page. I see you are still having to revert the analytic/continental nonsense.

Did you say you were planning work on the continental philosophy section? I'll support you on that. I'm not an expert, but can provide tail-gunning work and trench-digging and call air-strikes from time to time. Best Dbuckner 10:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hegel

Note the 'dubious claim' was not mine! I left the material about Hegel in as I don't know the subject. Do check over any of the rest. Thanks. I note it mentions 'absolute idealism' without any explanation of what it is. edward (buckner) 08:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continental philosophy

I liked the new introduction. Good work. And now I need to look at the Analytic philosophy article! edward (buckner) 12:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Modern Philosophy

Phew - thanks. edward (buckner) 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influences/Influenced

Thanks for your note about removing the influences/influenced sections from the philosopher infobox. I seem to recall it generating a lot of opposition, however, so I think we may have to drop the issue and just enforce the rule that was suggested (and which someone said was already the rule): if it's not supported in the text of the article, it shouldn't go in the infobox. RJC Talk 15:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HI there

In fact I have been indefinitely blocked, with one admin asking that I be community banned. I shouldn't even be on your talk page, as very very serious offence punishable by death. Don't know how much you know about the alleged offence that has led to this death sentence. Happy to provide more detail, you can email me from my talk page, or d3uckner AT btinternet.com. Very good to hear from you and very cheering, glad you liked the Medieval philosophy, except I never got round to the second section, as you see. Would love to hear from you, I think some order has gone round from high. Indeed, you had better delete this from your page in case they spot it - two other people tried to get in touch but were threated with block. Many thanks again. 81.151.183.93 (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and if I did Barnstars I would give you one for the excellent work you have done on Deleuze. As you know, I don't sit on that side of the fence, but I recognise good work when I see it. In place of a Barnstar, here's a link to an incredibly crap article for your amusement. The best bit is "In 453 Attila died in bed with his new wife. As a result, the Hun Empire collapsed." but it is all good value. 81.151.183.93 (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleuze links

Hello,
Sorry about messing up links on the Deleuze page. I normally check every external link I remove but I was a bit to fast this time.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings friend

I thought after a suitable time I would come back. Made considerable additions to Medieval philosophy, and tidied up Philosophy as far as is possible (I moved the sections back to the traditional order of intro, branches, history, &c. Best. Renamed user 5 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Gilles Deleuze

271828182, you recently restored this passage, 'A parallel in painting may be Bacon's Study after Velázquez—it is quite beside the point to say that Bacon 'gets Velázquez wrong'.[29] (Similar considerations apply to Deleuze's uses of mathematical and scientific terms, pace Alan Sokal.)' to the article on Deleuze.

I stand by my comment that the part about Bacon shouldn't be there. It might be very interesting in an essay about Deleuze, but it certainly isn't right for an encyclopedia article. And yes, the comment about Sokal is snide and inappropriate in tone. You say that this is conjecture; all I can say in reply is that most people know a snide comment when they see one. Also, not all readers would understand the use of the word pace in that sentence; this isn't how an encyclopedia should read. Skoojal (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

I remind you that we comment on the article, not the editors, when discussing on an article talk page. DGG (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Existence precedes essence

This Existence precedes essence seems rather odd. I'm not an expert in the existentialist bit I know but this seems a bit dubious. Can you comment? Peter Damian (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleuze

I know next to nothing about the man, but this seems wrong on purely stylistic grounds. Is there a problem here? Peter Damian (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And this I prefer as it was. Peter Damian (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi left a reply on mhy own talk page per the new guidelines. Peter Damian (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)