User talk:Anthon.Eff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Archives |
|---|
| Archive 1. |
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:
I was thinking about doing the same thing, but leaving the article to the most persistent POV pushers who are trying to drive away all editors who don't agree with them doesn't seem like a satisfying solution to me. However, I respect your decision. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Economic anthropology
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I've added the other (missing) parent category, Category:Economics, for Category:Economic anthropology. It's always a good idea to find at least two parent cats when you create a new category (very few truly have only one parent). Regards, Cgingold (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- PS - This was exactly the category I was hoping to find for an article (Adaptive strategies) that was wrongly categorized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgingold (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summaries
Anthon,
you did more than your edit summary suggested and removed citations.
Please do not do so.
In my opinion, 
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Spiritualism (religious movement). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I apologize for making this pre-emptive action but I am attempting a pretty delicate and comprehensive tidying up of the references and citations, many of which are fairly loosely defined. Let us not over look that this matter has become somewhat personalized for you but please do not revert needlessly on an ad hoc basis or for spite. Please refer to acceptable references or citations to back your point of view.
Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- What is your problem Anthon? Do you want to discuss it? I am awfully tempted to quote Wikipedia:DICK at this point but instead I would rather just request that you collaborate cooperatively and continue to add benefit by adding citations and references to back your inclusion, or exclusions. I understand you are an academic, please let us keep up standards.
- I recommend you re-read some of TVÆRTIMOD yourself and hope that you neither using me as a little experiment regarding your paper on the Wikipedia nor not trying to pass on your genes to me ... "Game theory has established that the strategy most likely to help a social organism pass on its genes is one of tit-for tat." ;-) --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Could you explain to me what they mean when they talk about, "Leibniz as the founder of modern spiritualism"? it would not seem to fall within the religious movement. References and citations please. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- You make bad edits, I point it out. Standard WP stuff. The only person-attacking-person stuff I see is here on my talk page or there on the template deletion discussion. All authored by you. And by the way, I'm not your research assistant. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, be specific then rather than waving a club blindly ... I have made an awful lot of edits. Which one do you think is "bad" from your POV? Let us address it.
-
-
-
-
-
- But let's start first with the difference between the use of the word spiritualism or spiritualistic ... what point are you trying to make? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Spiritualism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
I am sorry to warn you again Anthon, but you are obviously out to edit war over this. I am happy to accept a general cleanup and stub, because that is exactly what the topic is.
I have tried to engage you in discussion. I have offered you some leads to follow up on. The article is well referenced. Yet you have made no attempt to discuss matters on either your talk page, or the topic talk page, nor on Talk:Spiritualism (religious movement).
Really, I the onus is on to at least point out where the references and citation are inappropriate. if you cant, or wont, then I am afraid I have to just see the action as a deliberate provocation.
- So, may I ask politely again, what is the point you wish to make? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Spiritualistic_small and Spiritualism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Given the additional identified and erroneous acts of bad faith you can recorded against me, please Anthon, engage in the discussion.
Without doubt you are a sophisticate contributor but you appear to be ignoring or unwilling to engage in essence of this disagreement ... does spiritualism refer to merely the religious movement or a broad series of events and practises? I appreciate your wish for accuracy but I think the multifold citations bear the latter out.
I also find it difficult to reason why you wold remove Modern Spiritualism from the article.
So, please, be reasonable. I appreciate that I may Espoo might have hurt your feelings by moving the article and you blame him for losing the GA nomination ... but that was not my doing.
I do however agree and I think there is plenty of room in the wiki for all interpretations of the word ... which is what I am working to. I tend to work "llive" as it encourages other to contribute positively with their expertise and citations. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi my friend (Anthon). It is now time to look over my article on Spirituality and see what we can do with it. I has a small heart issue and was off for awhile. You are the head person on this endeavour so tell me what we need to do to use parts of it on your Spirit site. You have done a great job so far. I have never won anything on Wiki except grief and attacks. But I still keep going down the yellow brick road.
72.24.148.150 (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Spiritualism, you will be blocked from editing. I am very sorry Anthon, but must warn from repeating of your previous pattern of WP:3RRs.
* This warning is specifically for your blanking of the aforementioned page and replacing of it with a policy page.
* I also draw to your attention your repeated deletion of a template that you proposed for deletion. That attempted failed and now you appear to engaging in an edit-war.
The essence of your edit-war appears to be the inability to understand or accept the wide usage of the terms spiritualism and spiritualist throughout academia. Please appreciate that the Wikipedia is an international project and does not merely represent and American point of view alone. Please stop and address the references given. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article moves
I see that Nealparr made a few changes to the Spiritualism aritlces, hopefully those will help resolve the issue. Dreadstar † 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Policing "Spitualism" infoboxes
Thanks for doing this. Tossing some huge new age religion box on top of an article about Muslim religious leaders (Marabout) was VERY problematic for me as well. You've made my life a bit easier! T L Miles (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- How many times do I have to underline this ... the infobox is not relating to Modern Spiritualism.
- If only you could show evidence of appreciating the difference in the uses made of the word.
- It went to a vote and it was kept. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I will try again but it very difficult to discuss when is someone is neither being entirely honest about oneself or the subject at hand.
-
- i think Tylor did a little bit more than "some work" on animism. His theory of animism also addressed nineteenth-century European dilemmas about the meaning of materiality. Despite the expansion of scientific materialism, with its implicit challenge to religious belief, the séances of Spiritualism were gaining popularity in Europe at the time.
-
- Initially, Tylor actually considered using the term “spiritualism” for his theory of religion. He regarding contemporary spiritualist practices in Europe as a “survival” of prehistoric religion just as I have documented. Like the religious beliefs and practices of indigenous people, the spiritualist séances represented an unwarranted persistence in spiritualistic theories. His theory of animism can be situated in the context of nineteenth-century concern over the religious implications of scientific materialism and the scientific implications of the practices such as Modern Spiritualism.
-
-
- Of course, what he knew of the world was much less than we do.
-
-
-
- So, please ... apart from your American bias, what is your issue? it is a matter of your faith? Please, I am trying to understand. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, if you really want to know, it would be churlish not to respond. One problem I have with your work is that it is the kind of cut-and-paste plagiarism that annoys every teacher. Take for example the message you wrote above. The text purports to be your own, but is actually from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature:
-
Initially, E.B. Tylor considered using the term “spiritualism” for his theory of religion, regarding contemporary spiritualist practices in Europe as a “survival” of prehistoric religion. Like the religious beliefs and practices of indigenous people on the colonized periphery of empire, the spiritualist séance represented an unwarranted persistence in attributing life to dead matter. As a European intellectual problem, therefore, the theory of animism can be situated in the context of nineteenth-century distress about the religious implications of scientific materialism and the scientific implications of a new religious practice such as spiritualism.
-
-
-
-
-
- I enjoy conversation with people who know something about a topic, but find it less enjoyable to talk to people who appear with a paste from a website and think that this trumps everyone else's remarks. The fact that you also cut-and-paste in article space creates a copyright issue for WP. For example, your paragraph in Spiritualism (religious movement):
-
-
-
-
-
-
In 1939, just as hostilities on the Continent began to flare up again, its findings — in the form of majority and minority reports — were kept secret, forgotten and not made public until 1979. While the intervening years saw a decrease in the outward membership in spiritualist societies which had so alarmed the Anglican establishment, there was probably an increase in the popular adherence to such beliefs.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- was lifted from this website:
-
-
-
-
-
-
The committee delivered its report in 1939, just as hostilities on the Continent began to flare up; its findings—in the form of majority and minority reports—were embargoed, forgotten, and not made public until 1979. The intervening years saw a decrease in the outward membership in spiritualist societies, which had so alarmed the Anglican establishment, but there was probably an increase in the popular adherence to such beliefs.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I could go on, but time, alas, is short. I hope you are satisfied with my effort. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually, Anthon, I paraphrased it directly from the book. I had not seen that page and it would have made my work much easier. If I had not tied it to the text, you would have said it was WP:OR or POV. There is no copyright violation in a short acredited quotation on the topic. You are confusing discussion on a talk page.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- So let's make a start on the actual references on the spiritualism page. You are not my teacher, so please, step down a little. We are all equals here.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have made the suggestion that if you want to write in a more academic style that we limit one article to the historical movement, e.g. Modern American Spiritualism (1840 -1920). That would be highly accurate and I would support it entirely.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I apologise if I have offended your patriotic sentiment but the rest of the world does use the world more broadly and my edits are based on reliable citations, e.g. "Spiritualistic practices have been recorded as being widespread throughout history and humankind. However, they were virtually unknown in American society until March 1848, when odd happenings were reported at the house of a farmer named Fox ..."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Please, I am beinghonest here, help me understand exactly why you feel so strongly about this ownership issue with regards white American spiritualism? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Lucyintheskywithdada
Nealparr, currently blocked, noted that you suspected Lucyintheskywithdada was a sockpuppet. If you still feel a checkuser is warranted, I suggest you do so (particularly because a positive result there will likely lead to Neal's unblocking). -- tariqabjotu 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I would highly recommend you stop edit-warring on the Spiritualism articles and templates. If you don't, there is the possibility you may be blocked soon. -- tariqabjotu 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you tariqabjotu. I do think that is very fair and reasonable of you to record.
-
- Anthon, I am coming back to edit on the spiritualistic pages. I am entirely willing to be reasonable if treated as an relatively intelligent individual. I must humbly caution you for the condescension that you have exhibited on the spiritualism page [1] and cutting and erroneous statements you have made about myself elsewhere. In this environment you are only equal to us all.
-
- I would be naive not to consider that have now found a good ally in Nihil novi but I consider that mass deletion of perfectly adequate citations and references as done in bad faith.
-
- I must also note that, having lost the vote on your nomination for deletion of the template for spiritualistic topics, you have gone about and deleted it off every topic is on. This also must appear to be done in bad faith.
-
- If I have one great inhibition in dealing with you, it is that on your linked to blog you state that you are working on a paper about the wikipedia and I have this fear that we 'lab rats', and our good intent, are just a "little experiment" for you.
-
- I am offering you a chance here to discuss matters briefly in a mature, non-partisan manner and put matters back onto a reasonable framework. I would never have dreamt to have gone about and attempted to prejudice others about you, I expect the same in return from you.
-
- Thank you.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Anthon, you have now on several occasions continued to make false assertions about me even though we have addressed the matter in discussion before hand. Firstly over the wachowski user accounts that we disallowed due to their similarity to living individuals and now over the issue of Tylors connection with spiritualism.
-
-
-
- Please do not continue to do so. Ultimately, it ... along with the mass deletions after the failure of the RfD ... is likely to backfire on you.
-
-
-
- I am more than willing to meet you half way. What is your point? Do you want an article on Modern American Spiritualism (1880 - 1920) or not? What is your personal interest or involvement with the movement? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Spiritualism
Thanks for re-formating my list, although I still have no idea why what you did worked and mine did not. In a more perfect world someone with my level of computer understanding would not be editing Wikipedia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Now I understand. Thank you for the explanation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Deoband
It does look like a big, notable conference. Would you suggest we use it as an external link or in the body of the article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The section looks succinct and well written, good work. :) MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview
What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Herbert Spencer
You have removed my reference to Spencer's influence on Hermeticism - which was supported by a citation: Yet you have left in the unsupported references to his influence on Anthropology, Town Planning, Ecology, Freud, Logical Positivism, & Sociobiology. Your only justification being "This belongs in Hermeticism - not here". The same argument could be easily applied to his influence in other areas. Spencer's influence on modern Hermeticism is a verifiable fact. It might not be a fact that you like - but that is no reason to censor it entirely.Josephus (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Influences mustn't be anachronistic. Do you really think Spencer was an important influence on a doctrine developed in Ptolemaic Egypt? Your quoted passage obviously indicates nothing more than that some of those who have studied Hermetic thought happen to approve of Herbert Spencer. Some Episcopalians also happen to approve of Herbert Spencer. Does that mean that Spencer influenced Episcopalianism? Think about it. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- At least this time you have provided some rationale. But please read what I have written before you automatically delete it. I wrote about Spencer's influence on Modern Hermeticism. The Kybalion was published after Spencer's death; and is almost entirely a modern work - being nine tenths a commentary by the 'Three Initiates' on a supposedly ancient text; a few excerpts from which are included (but which has otherwise never surfaced). There is therefore no anachronism in saying that this volume of modern Hermetic commentary was influenced by Spencer.
-
- Furthermore the 'Three Initiates' are not just "some of those who have studied Hermetic thought" they are the authors of the primary modern statement of Hermeticism, which has influenced much of modern esoteric thinking.
-
- If I write "I hope my editing shows a more co-operative style than that of Anthon Eff." it shows a knowledge of, and a reaction to, another writer; i.e. it shows influence. The nature and the degree of influence can be debated, but the fact that there has been influence of some sort cannot. The writers of the Kybalion were clearly influenced by Spencer. You obviously consider Hermeticism to be an entirely bogus philosophy, and that any association with it tarnishes and cheapens Spencer's reputation. That is an entirely legitimate opinion, which I might partly agree with. By all means write a book or put it in a blog; but don't use it as criteria for editing Wikipedia.
-
- I would be obliged if you would revert the edit yourself, or at least propose an alternative expression which you think might gain more general agreement. Wikipedia is supposed to be a co-operative enterprise.
-
-
- As you can see, I'm not the only one who wants to get rid of your edit. Probably your best chance of making the edit stick would be to wrap it up with a few other religious influences, so it doesn't violate WP:weight. For example, if you can say something like "Despite his condemnation of ecclesiastical institutions, Herbert Spencer was an influence on various new strands in religious thought, including modern Hermeticism (your source), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (another source), and liberal Protestant theology (example source)." Give it a try. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kaylene Gebert
Another editor has expressed concern that Kaylene Gebert is not notable. Please add references to her article to demonstrate that she is in fact notable. --Eastmain (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
