User talk:Duncharris/archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Duncharris

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.228.194.110 (talk) at 18:48, 16 July 2006 (Reginald Punnet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. Duncharris 16:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Start a new discussion

Archives

Archives of old discussions:

One / Two / Three / Four / Five / Six / Seven / Eight / Nine / Ten

Misunderstanding of spiritual science

Philosophers such as Dilthey and Husserl advocated recognizing that there can be sciences (they used the term "Geisteswissenschaften", sciences of the mind/spirit/human being) that are not empirically based in outer perception, and yet are fully scientific. (The Wikipedia article on Dilthey mentions this briefly.) Steiner was also part of this (largely Germanic) philosophical tradition, and called anthroposophy a "Geisteswissenschaft" (human study, but literally spiritual science), not a "Naturwissenschaft" (natural science). Philosophers grounded in the German tradition will certainly comprehended the distinction.

Geisteswissenschaft is the standard German term for what English-speaking peoples call the humanities. Dilthey, Husserl and Steiner were thus calling what they did by the same name as the humanities generally go by in German, and what Dilthey defended as the "humane sciences": though neither quantitative nor empirical in the same sense as the natural sciences, yet qualitatively exact and rational. In his late period (cf. The Crisis of the European Sciences), Husserl used the word Geisteswissenschaft to refer to an explicitly spiritual science, not just the humanities generally; Steiner also follows this usage. All of these thinkers believed that the natural sciences should not claim a monopoly on scientific approach; though the humane sciences would not copy their quantitative empiricism, they would still have a valid claim to the term 'scientific'.

Perhaps a completely different terminology would have to be found in English for this to be readily comprehensible to English-speakers. However, one usual translation — the almost exclusive one for Steiner's work — is "spiritual science". To declare these philosophers' work pseudoscientific is badly to misconstrue their cultural context. They are not claiming it to be natural science. Hgilbert 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:*(

Sad day. Guettarda 18:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Christiano Ronaldo is a wanker, we won't get any favours from a Argentine referee, but we were never going to score any anyway, even with the boy wonder on the pitch. Might end up supporting Germany as the only Northern European team left now. We're still world champions at rugby and have the ashes. — Dunc|☺ 18:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornuke

Some Cornuke supporter, cornuke himself?, is making a bunch of incorrect claims. --Cornukechecker 21:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Brilliant!

Wit.[1] KillerChihuahua?!? 20:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on Simetrical's RfA.

I'd like to see you returning to this RfA to give reasoning for your "vote". I don't believe it is polite, civil or acceptable to give an expression of opposition to an RfA with the reasoning "No.". This is exceptionally rude, and I'd like to see some reasoning - rudeness aside, your vote is likely to be discounted if it fails to provide reasoning. Werdna (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I opposed, as is my right. Your own RFA failed, perhaps for similar reasons. — Dunc|☺ 08:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are being exceptionally uncivil. Speculating on my own RfA of two months ago, referring to my actions as "trolling", making the vote itself, refusing to clarify your reasoning, and referring to other voters as "too stupid to realise that" is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Please stop this behaviour or you will be blocked for incivility.This was within the bounds of acceptableness, but still a little harsh and probably didn't help the situation. I'm withdrawing this part of my comment Werdna (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

LOL. The guy who harrasses you about your vote now threatens to block you for you "incivility". I assume this is an attempt at humour? Guettarda 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is no attempt at humour, nor is this "harrassment" of any kind. I find the behaviour listed unacceptable. Werdna (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You find a simple clear "No" "exceptionally rude", you troll ("your vote is likely to be discounted") and now you're threatening a block? Perhaps you might consider stepping back from the situation and taking a few calming breaths. You're not making much sense here, and you are harassing and threatening someone for no other reason than your dislike for his oppose position on an Rfa of which you are the nominator. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you've ever been an RfA candidate, you'll know that every oppose vote hurts. You'll also know that oppose votes without any reasoning hurt even more. The last thing the candidate needs is an oppose voter with no reasoning calling everybody else "stupid" and accusing those who question him about it of "trolling". That is not acceptable. Werdna (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Some of what you said has merit, and I've decided to strike part of my comment. I would, however, like to know where I called him a troll. Additionally, I would respond this way to that treatment of any candidate, not just my own. Werdna (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Bridge

I cannot understand why did you delete (it's not the first time!) content from Devil's Bridge asking to don't change the subject of an article. I seem that YOU changed the subject of the article, which currently contains a general and not limited point of view about Devil's Bridges throughout all Europe. Your version is clearly a violation of Wikipedia rules, as it consists in a deletion of other useful content in favour of a resitrcted point of view... as if you were convinced that THE Devil's Bridge is the Welsh one that you stick on. The current version, that I revised a bit, mantains ALL infos about the Bridges you like so much, so there's no need to blank it back. Let me know and good work!--Attilios 13:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Cause he's a nationalist douchebag.82.83.47.200 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rollback

Please only use rollback or other explanation-less reverting to revert vandalism or your own mistakes. If you want to revert because you disagree with an edit, you need to give a reason. See Wikipedia:Reverting. Thanks. --W.marsh 19:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to stop adding the tag to the page(s), just create inbound links and actually improve those pages and the encyclopedia. There's no need to get rude about it. --W.marsh 23:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're not unnecessary... those pages haven't been edited in 5 months, and I'm pretty sure it's because no one's seen them, and that's because they're orphan articles. I'm sorry that you're more interested in rude reverting than actually improving the project... --W.marsh 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the page I mentioned above... rolling back good faith edits is considered rude by most editors. Especially doing it 3 times in a row. --W.marsh 16:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishware

How then, does our competitor have the option of putting their link on your wikipedia pages?? I'm referring to External Links/Dinnerware and Tableware Information

Did they write this article? If not, then they should not have access to link their site according to the information you sent me. If all I have to do is write an 'article' for you and then I can link our site, then that's fine. I just want to know what the "rules" are.

Thanks.

Deletion of FelixCheng's copyrighted images

Hi Duncharris,

I have been working with User:FelixCheng recent (see the extensive discussions on his and my talk pages). I note that you have deleted all the images on his user page as "copyvio". These images were based on likely copyrighted images, but he had made substantial changes to them. My understanding of copyright law is these changes allow Felix to claim these new images as his copyright and subsequently license them under the GFDL for use on Wikipedia. I'd like to hear your take on this.

Of course this does not apply to the unchanged images that he had uploaded. Thanks, Gwernol 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading the pictures of Westdiep and Van Galen. These are actually my pictures, having taken them on the Navy days at Zeebrugge this weekend, but did not think of putting them on wikipedia yet. What Flickr and CC licenses can be good for! LHOON 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British trains

Category:British electric locomotives should become category:electric locomotives of Great Britain rather than category:electric locomotives of the United Kingdom, and likewise the same for railway-related ones. This is because for geographic and historical reasons, the railway boundaries do not correspond to the political boundaries. Dunc|☺ 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How about British-> Britain. EG: electric locomotives of Britain. Lexically, it is the correct transformation. I made that proposal on the scheme talk page, but no one cared much either way. Alternately, I am perfectly happy to make all the locomotive/train ones map to Great Britain. I would just like to apply a general rule for the British though so that it will be most predictable for naive users. Certainly we can put in redirects from the other terms, but You tell me what term should be dominant, and what gets replicated on all the Image pages. That is the term that will be hit on using google.
The basic rationale is to make more uniform the way placenames are used. In queries especially, people seldom use adjectival forms and so it becomes more difficult for folks to find stuff.- I completely agree that noun forms most often create a more wordy, more unnatural phrasing. If the categories are less poetic, that is a small price to pay for greater accessibility. There is a minor benefit in that the normalized pattern makes it easier for folks to guess the names of categories.
So questions
  1. Do you agree British -> Britain is preferable to -> the United Kingdom for the general case?
  2. Should the mapping be -> [train objects] of Great Britain for all the train categories affected, or will ->Britain suffice?
  3. Do you feel that for the domain of British trains, the negatives of this normalization outweigh the benefits?

Thanks for your feedback. 

-Mak Thorpe 20:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Mediation Cabal case

Hello there, Dunc. I have volunteered to mediate this case, involving acupuncture, acupressure, and others. Please voice any opinions and evidence you have supporting your stance about your edits related to the forementioned pages at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture. Only with your cooperation can the case be resolved peacefully. Thanks! --Physicq210 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Dunc. As mediator of this case, I request your cooperation with us. Only with your cooperation can this be resolved. Thank you. --physicq210 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I understand that you are acting with backing from other editors and are acting in good faith. However, this MedCab case was brought up specifically to address grievances of Jim Butler (and it listed your name as the defendant, not anyone else's, for some reason), and I volunteered to do so. This case helps concentrate complaints onto one page, instead of scattering it all over Wikipedia. Therefore, may I request that you put your grievances on the page list above, and I can address your concerns from there. It will take a short time, and I will notify you if I need your input if necessary.

Also, it happens that there are more and more complaints about your behavior showing up on the case page. Without your input, it is making it harder and harder for me to deal with their concerns. This is equivalent to a mob asking a powerless judge for your blood, if you see my point. I do not wish to resort to more drastic action, nor give in to their demands without your input. Again, please state your opinion clearly on the page (and please have evidence) so that this may be resolved without further action. Cheers, physicq210 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Kangaroo Court

Your edit accused me of vandalism. Could you please explain? I had asked for citations and discussed on talk page. --A Y Arktos\talk 21:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments on the article talk page. Suggest you read the policy on citing sources. Suggest you also find a source if you wish the material to be included in the article - the soure will need ot be reliable and use the workds "Kangaroo court" in reference ot the hearings - otherwise use f the term is POV and original research. I will revert your edit as you have not produced a source.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using rollbacks

Dunc, in a content dispute on which you are a party, you should not use your admin rollback button. You've been doing it all the time without any edit summaries. The rollback button is to be used only in case of obvious vandalisms. If you are a party to a content dispute, don't use rollback. Thanks. --Ragib 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, No personal attacks, Mr. Harris

Copied from User talk:Ground Zero:

What is your obsession with vandalising links on this page? The link is to Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen, 1st Baron Brabourne, so you change it to Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen claiming to "fix link" -- a blue link to a red one? — Dunc|☺ 11:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the edit history of Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen, 1st Baron Brabourne shows, this article was created on July 12, 2006. I changed the link on July 8, 2006 (here), so I did not "vandalise" the page I did not change the blue link to a red link, but one red link to another. I have explained to you how your previous accusation of vandalism on this page was a personal attack and asked for an apology then, which you did not have the decency to provide. Please apologise now for these personal attacks. Ground Zero | t 15:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nationalism

Please do not use Edit summaries to make personal attacks. In fact, please desist from making personal attacks altogether, although Edit summary ones are particularly frowned upon. Please read WP:NPA. --Mais oui! 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't personally attacking you, I was commenting on your insistance to move which would tend to break the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it rule". — Dunc|☺ 18:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OWN. --Mais oui! 18:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing valid category

Information icon Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks!

Removing articles from valid categories, as you are doing at the H.E. Hinton article, is widely considered to be vandalism here at Wikipedia. Please desist. --Mais oui! 18:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The test templates

Please don't use {{test3}} on a user who you are in dispute with but is not engaging in vandalism edits. I'm giving the same advice to User:Mais oui!. David | Talk 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not (again!!) use your rollback privileges to revert in case of edit disputes. The rollback feature is for revert of vandalism, not for edit disputes. --Ragib 18:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Punnet

Hello,

I read the Reginald Punnett article because I was intending to translate it into french. I saw there is a red link on nemertine worms and I thought maybe it should be linked to nemertea. Since I'm neither a biologist nor a native english speaker and I saw you were the first and still active author of this article, I thought I should ask first.

Thank you for having the patience to read my english,

Poulos|Talk. 00:23, Wednesday, September 25, 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duncharris/archive11&oldid=64152179"