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)
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)
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).
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)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ForrestLane42. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Phew - thanks. edward (buckner) 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
271828182, if you think, as you wrote in one of your edit comments, that there are better things to do than war with me, could you please try to convince Peter Damian of this? Looking through the history of the Deleuze article, I see that you added a reference to Deleuze's comment being 'oft-cited' as a replacement for the reference to its being 'famous.' That was a sensible thing to have done. Damian has insisted on adding 'famous' as well, which does not make the least sense. Skoojal ( talk) 09:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
271828182, some of your recent comments on talk:philosophy have been removed, since they were both off-topic and contained a BLP violation. I have left a comment about this on the administrators noticeboard/incidents. Skoojal ( talk) 06:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the edit, which also can be taken as a personal attack, which no editor should be put through on Wikipedia. Please don't do that again. If you have worries about how Wikipedia has handled something, please talk about them without stooping to personal attacks and stay within the bounds of WP:BLP. Thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Addendum for anyone reading this: Skoojal was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia six days after his last comment above. Shocking, I know. 271828182 ( talk) 05:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
On "Continental Philosophy" the funny idea is defended, against all my friendly erasures that France was liberated (not by the US army , not by De Gaulle), but by the communists. For a time, the communists were the strongest political movement there, it says. a) even if this was true, what has it to do with anything? b) it reinforces the stupid impression that "idealist" philosophers simply have not the brains to do real philosophy-- Radh ( talk) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Should this not be in the "reception" area of the the Deleuze page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand011892 ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The article I cited speaks explicity of Foucault and desire v. pleasure Anand011892 ( talk) 04:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The last line of the opening paragraph now states: "Analytic philosophy is sometimes understood in contrast to other philosophical movements, such as continental philosophy, Thomism, or Marxism."
This is bizzare. I believe it once just compared analytic philosophy to continental philosophy, which makes sense considering how analytic and continental philosophy are often defined by contrasting them with one another. To mention Thomism and Marxism is just random. Why not rationalism and empiricism? I tried to re-write it without the mention of Thomism and Marxism but then you undid my revision. I want to avoid an edit war, so why do you think Thomism and Marxism should be mentioned here?
- Atfyfe ( talk) 23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Your edit summaries do not make your justification clear. I think it best to start a discussion on the article talk page: [1]-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Philosophy. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Snowded TALK 12:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have picked up the habit of making an edit regardless of the talk page position after leaving things for a few days. You are also throwing around ownership accusations without justification. In the most recent case a majority of editors are for keeping Popper, and on Lewis the debate is open. You have not responded to questions raised on the talk page, or engaged with other editors. Its a form of slow edit war. Please use the talk page, edit the article when you have agreement, abide by WP:BRD -- Snowded TALK 04:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
This is archived from Ed Buckner's page:
There are a handful of problem editors on the Philosophy page and its neighbourhood. One has been blocked for a week. The other is User:Lucaas. Lucas has a history of ungrammatical and unsourced edits, and persists in a confrontational attitude to other editors, many of whom have expert knowledge in their subject area. He also fundamentally misunderstands WP:NOR.
User:Rbellin sums up the problem as follows.
I believe Lucaas has been described as incorrigible. This is the precise term for what Lucaas is. My experience of his editorial practice is confined to the entry on Being and Time. It may be summarised as follows: He knows he lacks knowledge of the topics he chooses to write about, but defends the idea that it's fine to write about things you know little or nothing about. He knows his writing is poor, but defends the idea that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to produce "compelling writing." On this basis he grants himself free license. Add to this his propensity to falsely imagine himself the defender of "minority" positions, and what results is not merely a license to ignore others, but an insistence on doing so. Working on the entry is presently unrewarding to the point of being impossible, due to the efforts of this user. Mtevfrog 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Constant mindless reverts
Reverting an version of an article which had been agreed by three editors.
Lucas' first 3RR warning, coming four hours after his very first edit under this account, followed promptly by Lucas' removal of said warning from his Talk page and a retaliatory complaint by Lucas. These violations resulted in a 48 hour block on Lucas in his first day of contributing to Wikipedia.
Lucas removing his second 3RR block from his Talk page.
Four articles whose opening sentences Lucas edited to insert a POV judgment, all of which provoked multiple reverts and acrimonious Talk discussion:
Philosophy of mind Philosophy of mathematics Philosophy of language Philosophy of science
Note the above was not actually the day of Lucas' arrival in Wikiland. Previously he logged up a horrendous record of edits as User:Tercross, after which he was blocked.
(note from Lucas: this user tercross is actually another person, a guy who was a roomate, and who started using wiki and then passed it on to me. -- Lucas (Talk) 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)).
See here where Tercross was blocked for 24 hours for using it to avoid the block on the User:Lucaas account. The block log is here. And here is Lucaas removing the record of the block on Tercross. Dbuckner 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
See also:
Talk:Being and Time 8 February 2007. More problems
here,
here and
here.
The Afd on an article by Lucas
The deletion review on said article, including evidence of Lucas's multiple re-creations of the deleted material.
Sublation, started by Tercross and still maintained by Lucas. Mostly rambling, disconnected nonsense. Dbuckner 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the things most concerning to me is that you have removed all reference to Machiavelli and Bacon as well as the 1500s. Surely you aren't claiming that there is no source for calling them modern, or at least predecessors of modern philosophy? In other words, that aspect of your edits looks like POV pushing, and is frankly a little inexplicable to me. I write here wondering if it is just something you didn't notice?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I was just composing a talk page comment outlining the contention. It seems to me that we'd require a source that points it up. I don't think that the original French-language edition satisfies that. I doubt you are the only one to have noticed the difference. So I've left a talk page comment to see if anyone else may be aware of a source we could use. DionysosProteus ( talk) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just wondering, how do Vered's winnings add up to 496,602? The numbers provided in the article don't add up to that. Are some of his winnings not mentioned in the article? Thanks. Zagalejo ^^^ 17:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You are mentioned here. 86.180.187.79 ( talk) 07:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, 271828182. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 07:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
When you start an SPI, you should inform the involved parties. I have done so for you on User talk:Barnabas2000. LK ( talk) 08:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, 271828182. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ForrestLane42. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Phew - thanks. edward (buckner) 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
271828182, if you think, as you wrote in one of your edit comments, that there are better things to do than war with me, could you please try to convince Peter Damian of this? Looking through the history of the Deleuze article, I see that you added a reference to Deleuze's comment being 'oft-cited' as a replacement for the reference to its being 'famous.' That was a sensible thing to have done. Damian has insisted on adding 'famous' as well, which does not make the least sense. Skoojal ( talk) 09:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
271828182, some of your recent comments on talk:philosophy have been removed, since they were both off-topic and contained a BLP violation. I have left a comment about this on the administrators noticeboard/incidents. Skoojal ( talk) 06:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the edit, which also can be taken as a personal attack, which no editor should be put through on Wikipedia. Please don't do that again. If you have worries about how Wikipedia has handled something, please talk about them without stooping to personal attacks and stay within the bounds of WP:BLP. Thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Addendum for anyone reading this: Skoojal was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia six days after his last comment above. Shocking, I know. 271828182 ( talk) 05:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
On "Continental Philosophy" the funny idea is defended, against all my friendly erasures that France was liberated (not by the US army , not by De Gaulle), but by the communists. For a time, the communists were the strongest political movement there, it says. a) even if this was true, what has it to do with anything? b) it reinforces the stupid impression that "idealist" philosophers simply have not the brains to do real philosophy-- Radh ( talk) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Should this not be in the "reception" area of the the Deleuze page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand011892 ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The article I cited speaks explicity of Foucault and desire v. pleasure Anand011892 ( talk) 04:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The last line of the opening paragraph now states: "Analytic philosophy is sometimes understood in contrast to other philosophical movements, such as continental philosophy, Thomism, or Marxism."
This is bizzare. I believe it once just compared analytic philosophy to continental philosophy, which makes sense considering how analytic and continental philosophy are often defined by contrasting them with one another. To mention Thomism and Marxism is just random. Why not rationalism and empiricism? I tried to re-write it without the mention of Thomism and Marxism but then you undid my revision. I want to avoid an edit war, so why do you think Thomism and Marxism should be mentioned here?
- Atfyfe ( talk) 23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Your edit summaries do not make your justification clear. I think it best to start a discussion on the article talk page: [1]-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Philosophy. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Snowded TALK 12:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have picked up the habit of making an edit regardless of the talk page position after leaving things for a few days. You are also throwing around ownership accusations without justification. In the most recent case a majority of editors are for keeping Popper, and on Lewis the debate is open. You have not responded to questions raised on the talk page, or engaged with other editors. Its a form of slow edit war. Please use the talk page, edit the article when you have agreement, abide by WP:BRD -- Snowded TALK 04:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
This is archived from Ed Buckner's page:
There are a handful of problem editors on the Philosophy page and its neighbourhood. One has been blocked for a week. The other is User:Lucaas. Lucas has a history of ungrammatical and unsourced edits, and persists in a confrontational attitude to other editors, many of whom have expert knowledge in their subject area. He also fundamentally misunderstands WP:NOR.
User:Rbellin sums up the problem as follows.
I believe Lucaas has been described as incorrigible. This is the precise term for what Lucaas is. My experience of his editorial practice is confined to the entry on Being and Time. It may be summarised as follows: He knows he lacks knowledge of the topics he chooses to write about, but defends the idea that it's fine to write about things you know little or nothing about. He knows his writing is poor, but defends the idea that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to produce "compelling writing." On this basis he grants himself free license. Add to this his propensity to falsely imagine himself the defender of "minority" positions, and what results is not merely a license to ignore others, but an insistence on doing so. Working on the entry is presently unrewarding to the point of being impossible, due to the efforts of this user. Mtevfrog 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Constant mindless reverts
Reverting an version of an article which had been agreed by three editors.
Lucas' first 3RR warning, coming four hours after his very first edit under this account, followed promptly by Lucas' removal of said warning from his Talk page and a retaliatory complaint by Lucas. These violations resulted in a 48 hour block on Lucas in his first day of contributing to Wikipedia.
Lucas removing his second 3RR block from his Talk page.
Four articles whose opening sentences Lucas edited to insert a POV judgment, all of which provoked multiple reverts and acrimonious Talk discussion:
Philosophy of mind Philosophy of mathematics Philosophy of language Philosophy of science
Note the above was not actually the day of Lucas' arrival in Wikiland. Previously he logged up a horrendous record of edits as User:Tercross, after which he was blocked.
(note from Lucas: this user tercross is actually another person, a guy who was a roomate, and who started using wiki and then passed it on to me. -- Lucas (Talk) 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)).
See here where Tercross was blocked for 24 hours for using it to avoid the block on the User:Lucaas account. The block log is here. And here is Lucaas removing the record of the block on Tercross. Dbuckner 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
See also:
Talk:Being and Time 8 February 2007. More problems
here,
here and
here.
The Afd on an article by Lucas
The deletion review on said article, including evidence of Lucas's multiple re-creations of the deleted material.
Sublation, started by Tercross and still maintained by Lucas. Mostly rambling, disconnected nonsense. Dbuckner 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the things most concerning to me is that you have removed all reference to Machiavelli and Bacon as well as the 1500s. Surely you aren't claiming that there is no source for calling them modern, or at least predecessors of modern philosophy? In other words, that aspect of your edits looks like POV pushing, and is frankly a little inexplicable to me. I write here wondering if it is just something you didn't notice?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I was just composing a talk page comment outlining the contention. It seems to me that we'd require a source that points it up. I don't think that the original French-language edition satisfies that. I doubt you are the only one to have noticed the difference. So I've left a talk page comment to see if anyone else may be aware of a source we could use. DionysosProteus ( talk) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just wondering, how do Vered's winnings add up to 496,602? The numbers provided in the article don't add up to that. Are some of his winnings not mentioned in the article? Thanks. Zagalejo ^^^ 17:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You are mentioned here. 86.180.187.79 ( talk) 07:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, 271828182. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 07:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
When you start an SPI, you should inform the involved parties. I have done so for you on User talk:Barnabas2000. LK ( talk) 08:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, 271828182. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)