User talk:Buridan

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 14:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging boldness. Since you invited contact, I am so doing. Usually I would just leave my comments on the article page itself. I reverted a section of the Political Science article, as well as left a message regards to your comment on the Talk:Political science discussion. You are free to offer rebuttal. --Mikerussell 05:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't actually say be bold, i just said we need to fix the political science article. i rebutted. --Buridan 18:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So much for taking a year off...[edit]

Just noticed your User Page and your contribs don't agree :-). Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Rail[edit]

I noticed you did all the work on the National LambdaRail page. Is this the same thing as the network on the Lambda rail network page? SDC 03:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

strange, it seems to be my text on both pages more or less, but i could swear that i did not make the first, and that it should probably point toward the second.--Buridan 11:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go Hokies![edit]

...from a former Political Science student of Virginia Tech. - Caponer 06:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs[edit]

I see that you've added some content on blogs while on Wikipedia. I thought, therefore, there was a chance you would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging. Phil Sandifer 17:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HFHI[edit]

Hi, I'm curious, what's the rationale behind adding Habitat for Humanity International to Category:Humanists? It doesn't really seem to fit with the rest of the category's contents... — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 01:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Humanism[edit]

Do you think there is a place for International Academy of Humanism in Wikipedia? It is currently mentioned on 2 Wikipedia pages. --JWSchmidt 23:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

there is no reason not to have even a small page and then see how it goes from there. --Buridan 03:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humanism[edit]

It is not your fault. There is a bug going round which duplicates articles on edits. Fire Fox 13:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humanism[edit]

Hi Buridan. Please see this edit of yours, where you more than doubled the length of the page with duplicate contents. This is why you were being warned, as there was a vandal doing similar things on other pages at the same time. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 13:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lettrism[edit]

I added {{Not verified}} to a few articles associated w/ psychogeography, neoism, situationalism, lettrism etc., because i felt wikipedia had not adequately verified certain elemnents of those articles which were presented as facts.

My intention was not to just place the tags and then run off. I am starting w/ Sadie Plant (1992). The Most Radical Gesture: The Situationist International in a Postmodern Age. Routledge. and seeing what can be found. If you know of other sources which might be helpful, or other articles that might be verified at the same time, could you add links to User:EricR/Psychogeography? Any help would be appreciated. EricR 19:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transdisciplinarity[edit]

I copied the citation from "Sources" so now it's a footnote in the text as well. The Mittelstrass article is one of several articles in the document (PDF) - in fact, it's near the bottom. It (the Mittelstrass article) is excellent - hope you find time to read it.

"Interdisciplinarity properly understood does not commute between fields and disciplines, and it does not hover above them like an absolute spirit. Instead, it removes disciplinary impasses where these block the development of problems and the corresponding responses of research. Interdisciplinarity is in fact transdisciplinarity." --Mittelstrass

--Smithfarm 06:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogosphere[edit]

Hi - I've made an additional edit to try to provide more clarity and brevity, and left a note on the talk page. --mtz206 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Opera House[edit]

The image of the opera house was removed by me from the postmodernism page, a move you reverted. I have removed it again pending a reference for its supposed postmodernism. Its own article never mentions it as postmodern and I can't see any postmodernism in it. It seems quite modernist to me, especially the evocation of sails in its design. Srnec 17:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I was asking for a reference to its postmodernism. The article on postmodernity seems to differentiate "postmodernity in architecture" from postmodernism. Srnec 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Postmodernism. Srnec 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff you might want to know[edit]

User:SteveWolfer has requested mediation on a dispute that is taking place between you and him on the List of publications in philosophy talk page. Here's a link to the case page:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 List of Publications in Philosopy - Ayn Rand

--The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 08:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anscombe[edit]

Thanks for fixing my error. Firefox causes this problem intermittently; I missed it this time. Banno 03:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transdisciplinarity[edit]

I hadn't finished, actually. The viewpoint expressed does represent one way of thinking about TD, but there are others.

If you visit the Transdisciplinarity article, you'll see something of a flame - I've challenged the authors to try to make sense and present the information in a coherent way. (I wouldn't have done this if I didn't think the subject is important and these voices need to b heard -- and deserve to be explained.)

--B.

Merge deletion[edit]

The merge request was withdrawn. Wikipedia policy requests discussions about moot points to be deleted. So it goes, SteveMc 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rand and Philosophical lists[edit]

I left some comments here, detailing some sources on the status and non-status of Rand as a philosopher. Please comment and help get this ridiculous back and forth to some proper consensus. - Sam 04:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buridan, please stop removing links to Ayn Rand and her philosophy without building consensus for your course of action first. The Transhumanist (AWB) 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rand and Buridan Deceptive Edit Summaries[edit]

Buridan, please do not use deceptive edit summaries as you did on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_philosophers_born_in_the_twentieth_century page.

I clearly stated (under my away IP address): Verifiable source of Rand as a philosopher: https://web.archive.org/web/20040531115530/http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761579630 "Ayn Rand (1905-1982), American novelist and philosopher, whose championing of the gifted individual established her as a controversial figure in 20th-century literary and philosophical debate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VERIFIABLE "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research."

So, please provide a reliable verifiable source that she is not a philosopher.

You removed the comment with the deceptive summary: "rv: sockpuppet vandalism" and removed the text. In no way can the above text on a talk page be considered vandalism.

Ayn Rand may not be a "good" philosopher, or a popular one, or agree with anyone else's personal philosophy of live, but it is verifiable that Encarta does list her as a philosopher, and verifiablility is what Wikipedia requires, not "goodness", popularity, or agreement with personal ideas or values. 75.24.182.42 03:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is a longstanding discussion about this. the issue is whether you represent the minority perspective, as you wish to do and thus promote rand in a very npov way like the encarta entry does, or whether you leave her out like 99% of other encyclopedias do. she is generally described as a writer,author, yadda, yadda. there is no consensus in the world that she is a philosopher. we've discussed it at length.--Buridan 11:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that other users have opposed your changes, you should really be discussing what you want to do first, and build consensus instead of forcing your changes to the lists with links to Rand, such as the List of basic philosophy topics. Edit warring isn't cool. Please stop. Your changes lack consensus, and you are starting to ruffle feathers. I suggest you pay attention to the requests others are making of you. Calm down, take a deep breath, and gain support for your desired changes on the talk pages of the corresponding articles. Forcing changes to an article in the face of opposition is not consensus-building, and is greatly frowned upon on Wikipedia. The Transhumanist (AWB) 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see talk page for rand?[edit]

Check now.

Noam Chomsky[edit]

Hello, someone on the Noam Chomsky page is vandalizing

CfD[edit]

Check this out: [1] bunix 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science and technology[edit]

You might be interested in the discussion at this article's talk page, and the related AfD. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaron Brook[edit]

Buridan, I can understand you want to have the transcript in the article. What he says is absolutely outrageous. But why did you delete the link to the video?. And the details to date and source. Yes I consider sources as the most important thing too in an encyclopedia.

So in a way you give the central point but make it appear biased. Since there is no source, is that what you want? Or don't you think most people are able to make up their own minds? And what problems do you have with my bibliography? Definitely puzzled.

Are you trying to teach me to not waste my time contributing anything here? LeaNder 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

prolly a bad edit, i deleted the video last week in a consensus move, but did not delete any source material. --Buridan 11:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

steve.museum[edit]

Not only the first incarnation of the article, but also the second, third and fourth incarnations made no effort to convey notability. Unless you find some way in which it meets WP:WEB (which none of the articles nor the website itself suggests), it is not notable. —Cuivi é nen 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted the article to deletion review. Thanks, --Sils660Sils660 21:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense for me to submit the article to AfD? I am not sure I understand how that is different from deletion review. Thanks, Sils660 06:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some new references to the Talk:Steve.museum page. I was reluctant to post them on the actual steve.museum page because I don't know if blogs are acceptable references, etc etc. If you have a sec would you mind taking a look at them? If they look good I'll add them to the page. Thanks, Sils660 20:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Higgs (philosopher)[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. John Reaves 14:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then please tag with a new deletion temp, I've had enough trouble and I think this guy could use a second person wanting to delete to get the message. John Reaves 02:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irascible Professor (second nomination)[edit]

Hey, I'm not gonna fuss about if you think its worth keeping but I hope you realise that the reslist was mainly due to the problems with the original nom. If the comments of users with potential conflicts of interest or odd voting patterns are removed, it leaves a 'score' of 2 for delete and no keep votes; to my mind, the sort of discussion that would be relisted for more input. --Robdurbar 10:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD participation[edit]

Hi Buridan. Thanks for your participation in the WP:AFD process! I would just like to remind you, however, to bullet your votes by starting them with an asterisk (*). —Mets501 (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a User's Comments[edit]

You are right. I shouldn't have modified that user's comments. Take a look at my user page under your message for my reply. I had good intentions and was not attempting to create the impression that he said other than what he had. But, your point is well taken and I'll not be modifying comments in the future. Steve 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. - I notice that you completely erased my comments from that Talk page when you took the strike-thoughs out. I put them back in since I assume that I have the same right to have my comments left intact. You need to be more careful lest someone call your acts unconscionable. Steve 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you put your comment in the header, where they could be confused with another parties signed comments, your comment is in the middle of another persons header/comment. same prollem, kindly fix.--Buridan 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you take a look, my comments are after the 'header' comments of the template's creater - user infinity0 and they come before the next comment which is by user Atfyfe. My comments are not in the middle of anyones comment. And I indented my comment and put blank lines between my comments and those above and below mine. Also, all of the comments, including mine, are signed. Steve 22:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued reversions at Pseudophilosophy[edit]

Hello: You may be interested to note that user LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · block log) who has previously deleted and reverted your edits at pseudophilosophy is continuing in such removals. --Leflyman^Talk 07:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, I've brought up the matter of inappropriate use of protection in support of LaszloWalrus by admin Nandesuka, whom I note has been involved in content dispute with you at Ayn Rand Institute. Please take a look on his talk page, and let me know if you feel that his usage of admin powers has been in keeping with Protection policy and in particular, Semi-protection policy section on "When not to use semi-protection."--Leflyman^Talk 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin involved, Nandesuka, appears unwilling to acknowledge what I view as the inappropriate use of his admin powers, I've opened an RFC on the matter: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nandesuka. Please review it and add your comments, as it discusses issues you've been dealing with at a number of articles. If it meets with your approval, your endorsement there would allow the RFC to proceed. Thanks, --Leflyman^Talk 04:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand and the List of basic philosophy topics[edit]

Your recent removal of links from this list lacks consensus. Please refrain from removing them again until consensus has been reached for that course of action. Currently there is no consensus to support your removal of them. Therefore stop, please. If you still wish to make the change, propose it and seek consensus on the list's talk page. Thank you. The Transhumanist 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no consensus to have them either. --Buridan 13:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need consensus to add the links, because we're not adding them -- the links have been on that page for quite some time. It is you who wish to remove them. And because there are editors who oppose your change, that forces the issue of removing the links into a proposal process. And for a proposal to be implemented, consensus must be reached supporting that proposal. The issue (your proposal) is the removal of specific established links. So far there is no consensus to remove them, and therefore your proposal does not have the support it needs. The concept is analagous to the deletion debate process - without clear consensus to delete a page, the page remains on Wikipedia. If the situation was inversed, and you tried to add J.R.R. Tolkien to the list, your change would have consensus by default unless someone opposed you. However, in the face of opposition, your addition of Tolkien would be a proposal, subject to the consensus building process. I'm opposed to the addition of Tolkien to the list, by the way. And I'm also opposed to removing Rand and Randianism from it. The Transhumanist 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, actually, no most of them were added within the last 18 months. readding once removed moves into proposal to add links. there needs to be no consensus to remove them unless there is clear consensus not to remove them. and we know you are opposed to anything that removes rand, you have stated that everywhere. --Buridan 18:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the cornerstone of editing is to Be Bold when updating pages. And as someone pointed out to me on certain articles I regularly edit, Consensus Can Change, which notes "everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later date. " regards,--Leflyman^Talk 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is a good approach, but it doesn't mean you should be belligerent. "Be bold" applies when there isn't any opposition. Of course you find out if there is opposition by being bold. Once you come across opposition, it's best to discuss and reach Wikipedia:Consensus. The Transhumanist 08:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity searching with Google[edit]

As you wish to resolve the Rand matter whichever way it turns out, you could help in the search for citations. Besides, it's only fair that both sides in a dispute have access to the same tools...

Google supports wildcard searches. The wildcard is an asterisk, which represents one word (Google doesn't support character wildcards or partial-word wildcards as of yet). A special trick using wildcards can be used to conduct proximity searches: use quotes. For example, "Ayn Rand * influential" will return results in which Ayn Rand and influential appear exactly two words apart. There's a tool on my tool page for automatically searching for word pairs that are three or fewer words apart (it submits the required multiple wildcard queries for you). I hope this helps. The Transhumanist 07:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randianism[edit]

Buridan, I have every right to edit a list that pretains to the nature of any article on the wiki, especially if that list is used as part of maintaining that article, even more so when that list contains words that are derogatory and inflammatory. You on the other hand do not have the right or the authority to tell me or anyone else what to do, and that is that.The Fading Light 04:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually, i do have the right to tell you what to do in this case as what you did is against the rules, which i posted on your page. that list is used as part of maintaining the page, but it is not your list, it is clearly someone elses's so don't change it. --Buridan 13:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have violated no rules whatsoever, you on the other hand have gone out of your way to attack and destroy anyone and everyone who does not support your "Attack Ayn Rand" policy so I will take everything you say with a grain of salt. You are on very thin ice right now, don't start jumping up and down. The Fading Light 06:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error: Template_talk:Philosophy_navigation#there_is_another_possible_solution. rights -> writes. And, although I laughed heartily, that comparison is essentially going to be considered flamebait, and I'd suggest you retract or rephrase it. :(

And if you think this is fun, just take a look at Talk:Philosophy, where they're trying to rewrite the entire Lead-section! (at least, most of them are… some are just talking to themselves, i think). Ah well, calmness and consensus will pull through eventually. :) Sorry to ramble, back to coffee… —Quiddity 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turn About[edit]

I did not threaten, just stated a fact. Beyond that what is not acceptable is your one-man war against Ayn Rand. The Fading Light 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you threatened, that was clear. and i am not waging in war, i am making very solid arguments for a well recognized position that is recognized by the majority of people who have edited those pages. the minoritarian view is the rand promoters. --Buridan 02:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on SteveWolfer[edit]

Hi, Buridan, I'm considering making a request for comment on SteveWolfer, who seems to be one of the most tendentious "Randian" editors. A RFC requires at least two editors to show that they've attempted to resolve a dispute on a talk page, so I'm coming to you first before I get this thing going. I think our attempts to settle things on Talk:List of publications in philosophy is sufficient for the purposes of initiating the RFC. Would you be willing to participate? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've start it. If you could add in your dispute resolution attempts under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" and sign under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" (assuming you agree with what I've written), we can get this moving along. Thanks for you assistance. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schools of Informatics[edit]

You edited "informatics" with the comment that "schools go on another page"—where? — Michael Fourman 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. Since informatics has an identity separate from both computer science ans library nand information science, and there are increasingly many schools of informatics, maybe it's ime we started a list of schools of informatics — as a section on the informatics page, or as a category?—Michael Fourman 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Britting[edit]

Please see the small print in the WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion instructions on how to submit a second nomination for the same article. (I restored Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Britting to its prior version, assuming that you will be creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Britting (2nd nomination) later.) --Metropolitan90 00:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs[edit]

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed[edit]

Just noticed you teach at Va Tech. Hope everything's going okay down there. I mean, I'm sure everyone down there is quite shooken up; I just hope you didn't lose anyone personal to you. I'm really sorry if you did. Otheus 20:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this sentiment. Hope you're hanging in there.Ethan a dawe 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly accusations[edit]

News flash: I'm you! You gotta see this for yourself. FreddyTris 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New flash: I'm everyone else, too! They're trying to call me a "sock puppet" now just because I'm behind the same firewall as other editors. What's really funny is that they're also Objectivists, but they're not happy that Stevie got himself banned so they blame me. It's hilarious! They've got a whole conspiracy theory worked out involving anonymous users, too. You gotta read it for yourself. FreddyTris 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rand, philosophy[edit]

She uses the term "objectivism" in a different way than traditional uses. This is why she capitalizes the term; she uses it as a proper name. I'll put the rest of what I have to say on the talk page. Endlessmike 888 04:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

sock puppets[edit]

FraiserB and FreddyTris are suspected sock puppets of Lancombz. Read all about it here. Endlessmike 888 19:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank ye![edit]

Thanks for the notice on Mizuko Ito, I hadn't seen she was up for deletion. :-) -JustinHall 14:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethics[edit]

Yo, I've started a discussion at Template talk:Ethics on a criteria for inclusion for the template, your input would be most welcome.Skomorokh 19:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARI[edit]

Though I doubt we agree on much, you might want to look at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 15:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Aspects of Privacy[edit]

You misunderstood my question. I asked "Which school of philisophical thought would hold closest to the idea that individual privacy is valued above all other societal needs?" I already knew the notion on its own is not tenable as a pure philispohical goal. So which one comes closest?--Dr who1975 06:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which way you want it?[edit]

You did an "undo" of my simplifcation to the "history of the term" in Political Economy. That is fine if you also want to change "history of the term" to just plain "history". The term itself came with Smith with a possible accidental daliance by Petty. I certainly agree that the history of political economy INCLUDES the Physiocrats. But that is not the "history of the term". The actual term (as in terminology) does not seem to appear before Smith. Which way you want it? With no further communication from you before tomorrow noon USA PST I will undo your undo. --The Trucker 02:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly to the young[edit]

The citation that was reworded during recent editing said merely: "No doubt, most of her novels are still devoured on the reader's own time; but young people are increasingly likely to encounter Rand's books in the classroom." Which is by no means a claim that Objectivism appeals mainly to the young. It may be taken as inferring that classrooms (the issue being discussed in the citation) contain mainly the young, but that doesn't say anything about Objectivism. From observation we can believe that around high-school-to-college age is when people are looking for answers to "life questions" in general, and thus would be most receptive to any kind of philosophy that seems to offer answers, be it Transcendental Meditation, Christianity, Scientology, Objectivism, or Gangsta Rap. Again, that doesn't say anything specifically unique about Objectivism. In my own observation, attendees of the NBI lectures were mostly adult professionals, median age perhaps 35. Of course that group is preselected by having the money and time to attend the lectures, which probably biases it away from the young, although two college students attended the group I was in.

Certainly the notion has been heard from critics of Objectivism. My point is that whether or not young people are drawn to it, so are older people with open minds who are looking for alternatives to "conventional wisdom". It doesn't imply anything one way or the other about the validity of the philosophy. — DAGwyn 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

illogic[edit]

IN your response to my point above in "Which way you want it" you have claimed that I need to "cite" the non existance and non use of the term "political economy" while you are allowed to simply claim that the physiocrats used the term. It seems to me that YOU need to cite the EXISTENCE of such use as opposed to me being saddled with the responsibility of citing something which doesn't exist. As I said before, I believe that the science of political economy encompasses the physiocratic era. That is not at issue. But the section heading announces the intent to address the origin of the words as opposed to the history of the science. I can find no place where the phisocrats used that terminology and it is incumbent upon you to do so. They used the Frence version of the word "economics" in their dissertations. This may be a nit. But I frankly do not like an authoritarian telling me that its his way or the highway. I gave a cite for what I placed in the article. You have given none. But here is another -- http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/polical_economy.html

"The term political economy originally meant the study of the conditions under which production was organized in the nation-states of the new-born capitalist system. The term was first used in England in the 18th Century, to replace the earlier approach of the (French) physiocrats. The main exponents of Political Economy are Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx. In 1805 Thomas Malthus became Britain's (and possibly the world's) first professor of political economy at the East India Company College at Haileybury in Hertfordshire."

Where is your "cite"????

Stalker?[edit]

Are you following me around now or is it just a coincidence that you removed my recent prod? BTW, it is not required that anyone be notified of a prod other than through the prod tag, so your removal of the tag was illegitimate. Otto4711 15:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it says right on the prod to notify people and yes, i am watching your edits because i am concerned that you are not following the suggested procedures and then things are being deleted inappropriately. --Buridan 20:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit Janet[edit]

Hey, I had an idea. So that the info about the Rocky Horror songs, as a whole, doesn't get lost maybe you could make a new article called "Rocky Horror Score" and copy each one of the stubs in to that new article. That way it would be a pretty solid way to avoid future AFDs. Like I said on the AFD page, I'm a fan of the movie and the show and I'm not out to get rid of the info. I just didn't have the idea until just now. Only a suggestion.--Torchwood Who? 06:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the Dammit, Janet! article. -- Jreferee t/c 21:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd AFD for New Lettrist International[edit]

FYI - You previously participated in an AFD on New Lettrist International; it has been renominated a second time (AFD. --Lquilter (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could use some balance...;)[edit]

WikiProject Objectivism
Salutations, Buridan. I've noticed your interest in articles relating to Objectivism and would like to invite you to join the freshly resuscitated WikiProject Objectivism, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. Yours in enlightened self-interest, Skomorokh 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

History of Western Philosophy[edit]

Hi I have reverted my citation tags on the above article. If you actually read the article you will see why I put them there. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm going to put the citation tags back one by one, seeking agreement each time - first one is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Western_philosophy&diff=prev&oldid=221149350

the claim that slavery freed up time for philosophers to start philosophy is dubious at best, and is not supported by any notable writers or authorities, that I can see. Slavery was part of many ancient cultures, why did philosophy start only in Greece? In other cultures the leisured classes were priests or warriors. Sparta was notable for its culture of idleness, but no philosophy developed there. Russell does not mention the 'slave' theory. And so on. As for the rest of the article, the bits that aren't inaccurate or uncited are 1066-ish schoolboy nonsense, e.g.

"This whole movement gradually became more concentrated in Athens, which had become the dominant city-state in Greece."

"It's also well known that orators had tremendous influence on Athenian history, possibly even causing its failure (See Battle of Miletus)."

"[Socrates was] a fountainhead of all the main themes in Western philosophy in general"

"Medieval philosophy was greatly concerned with the nature of God, and the application of Aristotelian logic and thought to every area of life."

"Medieval philosophy was strongly tied to Christian philosophy, which itself came to be strongly influenced by early Islamic philosophy and Judeo-Islamic philosophy in the late Middle Ages"

As well as being bad writing the last is also incorrect - I am tagging this also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Western_philosophy&diff=221150455&oldid=221149350 (Christian philosophy not particularly influenced by 'Islamic philosophy', though it was influenced by Greek philosophy and by Islamic commentaries on Greek philosophy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Western_philosophy&diff=221150564&oldid=221150455 (Aquinas did produce a cosmological argument, but it did not originate with him)

You will say why don't I improve it myself - well look at my contributions e.g. Medieval philosophy, I do, but I give up on this one. Peter Damian (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still here, could you comment[edit]

on the criteria for notability of accademic books? If you have time could you comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 11:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thank-you...[edit]

...for keeping an eye on Template:Philosophy topics. It has not gone unnoticed! Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

An article you have an interest in, Jonathan Bishop, has been nominated for deletion. You might wish to express your opinion on the proposed deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Bishop_(3rd_nomination). Pontyboy (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buridan. What don't you like about Enlightened self-interest?[edit]

I'm just curious. I have done some of the original work on the article (including rescuing it from deletion), but the article has been modified by many other editors since. All of the association with Rand was done by someone else. For both of our convenience, just reply here, please, if you want to reply. 96.237.148.44 (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what i don't like is the listing of perspectives that make the article 'not a stub'. it should be expanded to be about enlightened self interest and the 'other figures' in it should be cut. --Buridan (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only wanted to put in, what I thought was the common understanding of the term as I have first (and really only) seen it in print. But there were some pretty insistent editors that said it was related to Ayn Rand (because of the association with Adam Smith and then to Alexis de Tocqueville where the earliest appearance of the term might be). And there was another editor who insisted that the principal meaning of term was, what I think is essentially deferred gratification. I think the definition in the lede is still what most people familiar with the term think it is. At least in regard to the times I have read and heard it used. 96.237.148.44 (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precarity (Social Christianity)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Precarity (Social Christianity), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Precarity. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Somno (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently tried to give this page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. Next time, please move pages using the Move tab. Somno (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you need to give clear attribution to the authors of the content in your edit summary and perhaps also the talk page, usually with an edit summary like "Forked content from Precarity as at 12:47, 17 February 2009" and/or providing the revision number. Attribution is important for GFDL reasons. (People sure are passionate about precarity, so good on you for trying to sort it out though.) Somno (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just a nice thing to do, it's necessary for legal reasons, regardless of who the editors are or what you think of their contributions. Somno (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not referring to US copyright law or anything else, just the GFDL and Wikipedia. I'm not a lawyer, but attribution is part of Wikipedia's ways, so that's what we do. Somno (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilism[edit]

Please refer to answers' dictionary definition of nihilism in relation to philosophy:

# Philosophy.

  1. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
  2. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.

There is even a psychological 'condition' in which patients who deny reality as real are termed 'nihilist'. Look it up.

My contributions to the page are justified, and the language I have used clearly implies that nihilism can be as extreme as to deny reality, but it is not a necessary condition. Even the Oxford dictionary defines it in the same way:

• noun 1 the rejection of all religious and moral principles. 2 Philosophy extreme scepticism, maintaining that nothing has a real existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.121.164 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics/Post-structural linguistics[edit]

Hi, thanks for joining into the discussion. Do you have any clue what can be done about the locked post-structural linguistics article? Is there any wiki admin who can help us? Because until that happens, the article can't be re-started now. Supriya 15:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to go to deletion review, best way to do that is to first recreate a good well cited article in your sandbox. Then take it to deletion review. --Buridan (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. A deletion review has to be done, but last time, someone else had tried and it didn't work. But is there some neutral sane admin who could help us with the nonsense that's still happening on linguistics? Every time you make changes to the article, they revert multiple times and then send you warning messages threatening to block / ban (see below). There has to be some way out of this? Supriya 07:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

block warning[edit]

Buridan, you've violated WP:3RR at linguistics. Keep it up and I will block you. kwami (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rv. and no, jihad does not fit this list neither does individualism[edit]

Who are you to decide? Wikinaut1980 (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

been there, done that. discussion on principle of inclusion is settled[edit]

in your past life? or in your future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinaut1980 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete formal language?![edit]

As you proposed here?! Please educate yourself first. Start with one of the references at the end of that article. Pcap ping 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one is a bit of a bully. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh Farrokh[edit]

Hi, There is a BLP issue and an RFC in here about Kaveh Farrokh. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 07:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 closed[edit]

I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LiteralKa reported by Buridan (talk) (Result: stale/DR) without action, but have left comments there that concern you. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech Project Invite[edit]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Buridan. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Buridan. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Buridan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mid Atlantic Crossroads[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mid Atlantic Crossroads requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SITH (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]