![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Impalement, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.-- I am One of Many ( talk) 19:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Impalement.23tagging 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 14:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Page is linked in the topic title above-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 21:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you know that User talk:Screenpeople is editing your stale draft User:I am One of Many/Madison McKinley Garton. That's a new account, but clearly aren't a new editor. What's going on? Widefox; talk 10:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. BlusterBlaster kablooie! 16:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This is going to be the last round of notifications I do before I close the Impalement case in about 24 hours as stale on the recommendation of the other DRN volunteers. I already posted a couple of recommendations in terms of community resources and processes to use to resolve the core dispute last week, and the ball's now in the two of you's court to either actively continue the DRN case (as in, posting statements more than once every few days) or seek another way to resolve the issue such as WP:RFC or WP:3O. BlusterBlaster kablooie! 16:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I've posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#impalement to be split into impalement injuries 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 04:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think this is better than my edit? Your version contravenes WP:CAT and the spirit of WP:OVERLINKING. 118.93.90.74 ( talk) 23:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
reducing promotional content
Thank you for quality articles such as
Deadwood Draw,
How Global Warming Works and
Jack Hoffman, for monitoring new additions, fighting vandalism and reducing promotional content, for
missing, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
A year ago, you were the 886th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
No worries about the he/she confusion. Figured I'd put this here instead the incidents page, thanks so much again for the continued support. Packerfansam ( talk) 17:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I am going to tag Talk:Impalement/GA3 for speedy deletion per {{Db-g7}} unless you have an objection. 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 10:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Just this morning she removed mention of historic synagogues in Omaha - the only indication in the article that there are any. I really don't think she understands the problem, or, if she does, is able to do anything about it. Let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 15:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Please explain to her as well that mention of a nude painting is not "POV". Joe has already mentioned this to her but perhaps it will be more effective coming from you. While you are at it you might cover the entire area of sexuality given her LBGT edits, as well as removing Playboy - repeatedly - from University of Wisconsin–Madison. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 10:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Your opinions fly in the face of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See [1] and [2], for example. (There have been other similar discussions.) It's a self-published, user-generated source, which falls under WP:USERG. Suggest you read WP:RS in its entirety. By those standards, The Political Graveyard is an iffy source, and if a better one can be found, it should be used. 32.218.38.92 ( talk) 14:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
[3] Captain JT Verity MBA ( talk) 01:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. (I know, I know, so few articles created? I've really been slacking.) I pledge to discharge my duties to the best of my abilities, and hope to be worthy of the trust you have placed in me. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 05:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank for !voting at my recent
RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! |
User:I am One of Many, pursuant to our discussion on the Talk-page of Intelligent design, allow me to address the issues that you raised there. First, Intelligent design (ID) theory is not a specious argument, but rather a theory with merits of its own. Proponents of this theory do not necessarily push the theological aspects behind the theory, just as we can see by the way this article, [8], presents Einstein's view of "randomness" in our universe, and where its author, Vasant Natarajan, cleverly explains Einstein's position on ID without having to admit that Einstein was bent on theism. He says, rather, that Einstein believed in mathematical laws of nature, which he equated as being something that was put there in nature by the "unknown," call-it by whatever name that might be. But, again, that is not my point here, when I come to suggest changes for this WP article. I only wish to see a more neutral point-of-view represented here, and one that treats the theory with due respect, just as in all the online articles one finds on the Internet, as well as on Wikipedia's foreign languages: French, German, Italian, Hebrew, etc. I have made proposals with the view that we can reach some compromise here. As for what you said about "Science is not metaphysics," that is incorrect. Much of Quantum mechanics theory has to do with the metaphysical, and, yet, it is treated as a science. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 19:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I hope I'm not intruding, about scientific theories being (dis)proven see [9]. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
One more thing, User:I am One of Many. It is also worthy of pointing out the fact that the ID theory is not only a scientific argument raised by some scientists (the more notable of whom being Albert Einstein), but it is also a philosophical argument mentioned by Maimonides and by Thomas Aquinas and by Sir Isaac Newton. See also this: [10]. Davidbena ( talk) 04:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
So, at least from a philosophical perspective, it ought to be represented as such by those who would disagree with its theoretical-scientific nature. Can you help me press for that on the ID page? How would this look there?
Sir Isaac Newton
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() The immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton:
|
Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 05:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Given that you are involved in the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC_for_BARC_-_a_community_desysopping_process I don't think it is appropriate that you are the one to reverse the closure. Please consider reverting yourself.
If you wish to dispute it then the talk page or WP:AN is a better venue. The closure discussion on the talk page basically resulted in the person intending to close it to decide not to. Chillum 19:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw that you edited on the Donner Party and was wondering if you knew any more information about it or websites that could help me! Thank you! MissyMaeRissaShaye ( talk) 05:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Better to continue the discussion here, I think.
The ANI, in which we both participated, was closed out in June or so with no action, based on her assurances that she understood the nature of the problems she'd occasioned, and a promise to try to stop. You'll recall that she had been removing references from articles to non-Christian religions and thought, sexual orientation, and sex generally, among other things; and while I was the one to raise this initially at ANI, it is certainly fair to say that I was not the only one to be troubled by these edits.
As the matter wrapped up, I was skeptical that she appreciated the problem (she described it along the lines of "offending one or two users") or that she'd actually quit the problematic editing, but after being characterized as "overzealous" on the point, I withdrew.
She has slowed, but certainly not quit, her POV editing. A partial list of such edits since then includes:
Here too I am not the only editor to remain concerned - see this Talk page entry from September.
I agree that the "party school" edit to the University of Wisconsin is, in the larger picture, kind of a silly thing; but between her registered account and the IP she sometimes edits from, she has made the same edit at least eight times now - see May 11, May 12, May 14, May 14, May 15, June 13 and October 3 in addition to today's. And to be clear, she's not removing the "party school" material but just the (perfectly good) citation to Playboy. Indeed in her October 3 entry, she updated the "party school" rankings to 2015 and went out and found a different source to insert in Playboy's stead.
So I take your point, that maybe this particular edit is a trivial thing to template her on; but she has continued her practice (albeit slowed) of idiosyncratic, unexplained or deceptively described removal of content for reasons that can only be explained as in furtherance of a personal point of view. I don't think that such editing should pass without at least occasional comment, and that's what I did. JohnInDC ( talk) 02:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your continued support and I apologize for any undue stress it may cause you. I have my opinions and and there are reasons I have them, and I'm willing to take heat for it, but I do feel bad if my actions result in problems for others. Packerfansam ( talk) 05:12, 27 October 2015 (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)
16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you made two reverts there today, and I want to let you know that 1RR is in effect at that page. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but I want to make sure that you know. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award |
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
I am One of Many,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why my edits were reverted. I added some more details about Susannah's life, and changed the wording to be more coherent. Could you please explain? Thanks. EHC0413 ( talk) 06:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
It is a well known fact. Not incorrect. Not false at all. The Vienna Circle were the circle of philosophers who introduced logical empiricism and the forms of it in Western philosophy. The base was exactly Tractatus. Read logical empiricism. It is a very well known fact, you must read philosophy, and to read much about logical empiricism. Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich ( talk) 03:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
This is from article:"In this theory of knowledge, only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be cognitively meaningful. Efforts to convert philosophy to this new scientific philosophy were intended to prevent confusion rooted in unclear language and unverifiable claims.[1] The Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle propounded logical positivism starting in the late 1920s." You must read about it and you notice it's true, because it is true. This is one very important thing. Exactly WHY Wittgenstein is so important in philosophy. Not piano or brothers suicide, but the develop of logical empirism. The scientific mind!
Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (
talk)
03:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Here, read very careful . This is very important things, very very complicated, OK:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/
http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/analytic/lecture10_witt1.pdf
http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Language_F11/Notes/13-14-Logical_Empiricism.pdf
https://philosophynow.org/issues/103/WittgensteinTolstoy_and_the_Folly_of_Logical_Positivism
Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich ( talk) 04:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly! "The ideas in the Tractates were an important influence on logical empiricism," exactly! Now you understand. This what I said. Exactly this. Never said he was member of Wienna Circle at all. Like you think, or others. Thank you for reading it. No I cannot speak English very good, true. I learn now. But I can think. That is different thing. It was nice meeting you.
Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (
talk)
00:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
BMK ( talk) 05:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Impalement, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.-- I am One of Many ( talk) 19:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Impalement.23tagging 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 14:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Page is linked in the topic title above-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 21:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you know that User talk:Screenpeople is editing your stale draft User:I am One of Many/Madison McKinley Garton. That's a new account, but clearly aren't a new editor. What's going on? Widefox; talk 10:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. BlusterBlaster kablooie! 16:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This is going to be the last round of notifications I do before I close the Impalement case in about 24 hours as stale on the recommendation of the other DRN volunteers. I already posted a couple of recommendations in terms of community resources and processes to use to resolve the core dispute last week, and the ball's now in the two of you's court to either actively continue the DRN case (as in, posting statements more than once every few days) or seek another way to resolve the issue such as WP:RFC or WP:3O. BlusterBlaster kablooie! 16:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I've posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#impalement to be split into impalement injuries 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 04:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think this is better than my edit? Your version contravenes WP:CAT and the spirit of WP:OVERLINKING. 118.93.90.74 ( talk) 23:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
reducing promotional content
Thank you for quality articles such as
Deadwood Draw,
How Global Warming Works and
Jack Hoffman, for monitoring new additions, fighting vandalism and reducing promotional content, for
missing, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
A year ago, you were the 886th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
No worries about the he/she confusion. Figured I'd put this here instead the incidents page, thanks so much again for the continued support. Packerfansam ( talk) 17:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I am going to tag Talk:Impalement/GA3 for speedy deletion per {{Db-g7}} unless you have an objection. 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 10:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Just this morning she removed mention of historic synagogues in Omaha - the only indication in the article that there are any. I really don't think she understands the problem, or, if she does, is able to do anything about it. Let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 15:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Please explain to her as well that mention of a nude painting is not "POV". Joe has already mentioned this to her but perhaps it will be more effective coming from you. While you are at it you might cover the entire area of sexuality given her LBGT edits, as well as removing Playboy - repeatedly - from University of Wisconsin–Madison. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 10:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Your opinions fly in the face of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See [1] and [2], for example. (There have been other similar discussions.) It's a self-published, user-generated source, which falls under WP:USERG. Suggest you read WP:RS in its entirety. By those standards, The Political Graveyard is an iffy source, and if a better one can be found, it should be used. 32.218.38.92 ( talk) 14:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
[3] Captain JT Verity MBA ( talk) 01:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. (I know, I know, so few articles created? I've really been slacking.) I pledge to discharge my duties to the best of my abilities, and hope to be worthy of the trust you have placed in me. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 05:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank for !voting at my recent
RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! |
User:I am One of Many, pursuant to our discussion on the Talk-page of Intelligent design, allow me to address the issues that you raised there. First, Intelligent design (ID) theory is not a specious argument, but rather a theory with merits of its own. Proponents of this theory do not necessarily push the theological aspects behind the theory, just as we can see by the way this article, [8], presents Einstein's view of "randomness" in our universe, and where its author, Vasant Natarajan, cleverly explains Einstein's position on ID without having to admit that Einstein was bent on theism. He says, rather, that Einstein believed in mathematical laws of nature, which he equated as being something that was put there in nature by the "unknown," call-it by whatever name that might be. But, again, that is not my point here, when I come to suggest changes for this WP article. I only wish to see a more neutral point-of-view represented here, and one that treats the theory with due respect, just as in all the online articles one finds on the Internet, as well as on Wikipedia's foreign languages: French, German, Italian, Hebrew, etc. I have made proposals with the view that we can reach some compromise here. As for what you said about "Science is not metaphysics," that is incorrect. Much of Quantum mechanics theory has to do with the metaphysical, and, yet, it is treated as a science. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 19:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I hope I'm not intruding, about scientific theories being (dis)proven see [9]. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
One more thing, User:I am One of Many. It is also worthy of pointing out the fact that the ID theory is not only a scientific argument raised by some scientists (the more notable of whom being Albert Einstein), but it is also a philosophical argument mentioned by Maimonides and by Thomas Aquinas and by Sir Isaac Newton. See also this: [10]. Davidbena ( talk) 04:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
So, at least from a philosophical perspective, it ought to be represented as such by those who would disagree with its theoretical-scientific nature. Can you help me press for that on the ID page? How would this look there?
Sir Isaac Newton
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() The immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton:
|
Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 05:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Given that you are involved in the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC_for_BARC_-_a_community_desysopping_process I don't think it is appropriate that you are the one to reverse the closure. Please consider reverting yourself.
If you wish to dispute it then the talk page or WP:AN is a better venue. The closure discussion on the talk page basically resulted in the person intending to close it to decide not to. Chillum 19:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw that you edited on the Donner Party and was wondering if you knew any more information about it or websites that could help me! Thank you! MissyMaeRissaShaye ( talk) 05:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Better to continue the discussion here, I think.
The ANI, in which we both participated, was closed out in June or so with no action, based on her assurances that she understood the nature of the problems she'd occasioned, and a promise to try to stop. You'll recall that she had been removing references from articles to non-Christian religions and thought, sexual orientation, and sex generally, among other things; and while I was the one to raise this initially at ANI, it is certainly fair to say that I was not the only one to be troubled by these edits.
As the matter wrapped up, I was skeptical that she appreciated the problem (she described it along the lines of "offending one or two users") or that she'd actually quit the problematic editing, but after being characterized as "overzealous" on the point, I withdrew.
She has slowed, but certainly not quit, her POV editing. A partial list of such edits since then includes:
Here too I am not the only editor to remain concerned - see this Talk page entry from September.
I agree that the "party school" edit to the University of Wisconsin is, in the larger picture, kind of a silly thing; but between her registered account and the IP she sometimes edits from, she has made the same edit at least eight times now - see May 11, May 12, May 14, May 14, May 15, June 13 and October 3 in addition to today's. And to be clear, she's not removing the "party school" material but just the (perfectly good) citation to Playboy. Indeed in her October 3 entry, she updated the "party school" rankings to 2015 and went out and found a different source to insert in Playboy's stead.
So I take your point, that maybe this particular edit is a trivial thing to template her on; but she has continued her practice (albeit slowed) of idiosyncratic, unexplained or deceptively described removal of content for reasons that can only be explained as in furtherance of a personal point of view. I don't think that such editing should pass without at least occasional comment, and that's what I did. JohnInDC ( talk) 02:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your continued support and I apologize for any undue stress it may cause you. I have my opinions and and there are reasons I have them, and I'm willing to take heat for it, but I do feel bad if my actions result in problems for others. Packerfansam ( talk) 05:12, 27 October 2015 (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)
16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you made two reverts there today, and I want to let you know that 1RR is in effect at that page. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but I want to make sure that you know. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award |
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
I am One of Many,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why my edits were reverted. I added some more details about Susannah's life, and changed the wording to be more coherent. Could you please explain? Thanks. EHC0413 ( talk) 06:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
It is a well known fact. Not incorrect. Not false at all. The Vienna Circle were the circle of philosophers who introduced logical empiricism and the forms of it in Western philosophy. The base was exactly Tractatus. Read logical empiricism. It is a very well known fact, you must read philosophy, and to read much about logical empiricism. Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich ( talk) 03:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
This is from article:"In this theory of knowledge, only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be cognitively meaningful. Efforts to convert philosophy to this new scientific philosophy were intended to prevent confusion rooted in unclear language and unverifiable claims.[1] The Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle propounded logical positivism starting in the late 1920s." You must read about it and you notice it's true, because it is true. This is one very important thing. Exactly WHY Wittgenstein is so important in philosophy. Not piano or brothers suicide, but the develop of logical empirism. The scientific mind!
Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (
talk)
03:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Here, read very careful . This is very important things, very very complicated, OK:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/
http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/analytic/lecture10_witt1.pdf
http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Language_F11/Notes/13-14-Logical_Empiricism.pdf
https://philosophynow.org/issues/103/WittgensteinTolstoy_and_the_Folly_of_Logical_Positivism
Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich ( talk) 04:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly! "The ideas in the Tractates were an important influence on logical empiricism," exactly! Now you understand. This what I said. Exactly this. Never said he was member of Wienna Circle at all. Like you think, or others. Thank you for reading it. No I cannot speak English very good, true. I learn now. But I can think. That is different thing. It was nice meeting you.
Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (
talk)
00:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
BMK ( talk) 05:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)