User talk:Rbellin

Archives

Sep 2003 - Jan 2005 Feb 2005 - Jan 2007

I am not trying to be difficult, and will leave my ip from now on (and at some point a login when I think of one). I respect your comments, and feel you are making a valuable contribution to this encyclopedia. 71.225.82.32 02:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful and fair-minded contributions to the Anglophone/Analytic Afd. 271828182 07:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add to the Deletion review that hasn't already been said there by you and others. Besides, it doesn't look like there's any support for an overturn except a lukewarm endorsement from Lucidish. I'm more concerned that Lucaas is pasting his confusions elsewhere, trying to trojan them into articles that can't be deleted, such as the snafu that is the Philosophy page. I am bandaging as I can: I just threw in a start of a rewrite of Being and Time (after giving up on the Heidegger page). And I fixed a bit in the Continental philosophy page, which I see Lucas has cleverly reverted (complete with the description of Carnap and Heidegger as "pupils" of Husserl). I fear I have may have permanently endeared myself to him by nominating his precious OR for deletion. 271828182 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the person below, I too recently submitted a number of relevant links to a website featuring fantastic and free annotations of Romeo and Juliet as well as Macbeth. You removed the link even though other links to the for-profit sites, Sparknotes and Cliff's Notes, appeared on the same pages. Why are those links valid while mine is not? Have you even seen the site that my links go to? If not, please do not remove them any more.

-AndrewMagliozzi (September 26, 2007)

I recently submitted a link to a website featuring a short film about a meeting between Emily and Higginson. The site also includes information strictly about Emily Dickinson. The link was removed, yet another link resides under the external links heading titled, "TV documentary," which curiously links to a synopsis of the documentary and distributor links to purchase a DVD. Why is this link still on the Wikipedia page? This link certainly violates the advertising and promotion rules of this encyclopedia.

Sprocketboy 02:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left the following wholly unsubstatnitated claim against my edits on the continental page. Your comment was completely unrequired and you are disturbing disucssion there by irrelevant interjections that only serve to confuse. Your eccentric comments on that page I hope will decline. As to published sources, I use nothing else! On the other hand your claims against me are completely erroneous, if not entirely fabricated. -- Lucas (Talk) 05:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you appear to misunderstand both the letter and spirit of the policy prohibiting original research as well as that of my comment. (And this is consistent with your editing, which often appears to me to be pushing your personal and idiosyncratic, original set of synthetic explanations of the history of philosophy.) Please try to be more careful about sticking only to published syntheses and explanations rather than constructing your own arguments based on "original philosophers' works" (which are certainly primary, not secondary, sources for articles on philosophy). -- Rbellin|Talk 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbellin, I left a message of strong support for your view on the Continental talk page.Dbuckner 08:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 12:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments but I was taking a different kind of high road. My beef is with the people who put up with this kind of nonsense, and the kind of finger-waggning that goes on as though it were a kind of playground fight. Anyway, as you see from my user page, I am making a determined effort to free myself of Wiki from now on, and concentrate on articles to peer-reviewed journals, and the conference circuit. I believe a few changes in the culture here would have put things right, but I see that will never happen. Just look at the nonsense on the talk page now. Dbuckner 07:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for cleaning up that article - that IP has been making ranting additions to it for some time. Mjk2357 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Jacques Derrida for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

I wasn't. I'm dead serious, that I think that joke is one of the few popular references to Jacques Derrida, and ironically one of the few ways he's known outside of some close circles. I think it's an important part of him, and like I said, should be added to the article. Whether you agree with that or not is an entirely different matter, but I wasn't trying to just write "general discussion of the topic". Kevin 03:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mainly the fact that it doens't meet the MOS and is a list used for sending people browsing around. Also, It looks more like a table of contents and those aren't conisdered articles. The Placebo Effect 02:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. It looks like these new editors are enthusiastic information design practitioners who need to learn NPOV quickly. Your suggesting they read the guide is an excellent idea. --Ronz 16:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rbellin, considering your contributions to Wikipedia, I would appreciate your thoughts/contributions on the following: Some time ago I created a project on Wikipedia called Scientific adjectives, a sub-project of the WikiProject Conceptual Jungle, aiming at making an overview in a table of scientific adjectives and the various branches of (the) science(s) and qualify them by discussing them, in order to improve the Wikipedia articles and make clear the interlinkages. The best would be if Wikipedians from various backgrounds could discuss and analyse the table to diminish the current wildgrowth in academic disciplines. Best regards --Brz7 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The motto shown on the article for the school and the article for the athletic conference don't match. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about this, I'd standardize them with whichever is correct, or more commonly accepted. Cornell Rockey 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify Public Ivy is correct it its current state? I was just following a vandal and I might have reverted a revert by accident. I have no knowledge of the subject. ccwaters 17:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note you left a message on User_talk:Maurici complaining about omnipresent links to coolitude... and, I'd add, coral imaginary. Both are pretty marginal articles, I'd say. I've just cleared up coolitude, and got rid of a whole bunch of links. But it's frustrating. --Jbmurray 10:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually now nominated for deletion (with a "prod") coolitude, coolie trade, and coral imaginary. As I note on the talk pages and elswhere, User:Maurici, User:Vaulx, and the person using IP 82.224.151.243 all seem to be the same person, who is no doubt not completely unrelated to Khal Torabully. At the very least, these three entities are very keen to promote Torabully's work and ideas, often unreferenced, in the most inappropriate of places. I haven't proposed deleting any pages before, so I hope I'm doing this right. --Jbmurray 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did hesitate over coolie trade, but so much was repeated from the other articles, I figured there wouldn't be much left over that couldn't fit into coolie, plus it's not as though it's linked by other articles. But we'll see what others thingk. --Jbmurray 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a more precise term would be appropriate, but these institutions are not even a close call. They all rank consistently among the top liberal arts schools, all have high SAT ranges, and all have fairly low admission rate percentages (i.e. <25%). I figured that, due to the messages you left on his talk page, the editor was just bitter that Wesleyan does not have such a descriptor in its article (perhaps it deserves it; I do not know), but I did not mean to imply on his talk page that he was doing so in bad faith. I don't think I did, did I? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern...but if it is sourced in the opening sentence, I think it would be acceptable. Perhaps I'll do this. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I only included the categories which were listed in the proposal. For all others, I think a separate CFR should be started. Conscious 19:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Rbellin, for your message and advice about removing the post-temporalism page that I'd posted! I came across the term in a seminar discussion that I attended and went looking to find out more about it and thought that it was worth a notice in Wikipedia as it seemed like a very reputable peer-journal that it was coined in (an OUP journal) and that it had at least some oral currency, as that's how I heard about it. You gotta admit, it's a pretty interesting concept and satisfies the Wikipedia criterion of having appeared in a peer-review publication first. Anyhow, I'd be interested in your thoughts. With many thanks, Charley ... --Charleys2004 18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleys2004 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Rbellin,

thank you for your recent posts. I am a reasonably experienced editor and I must have had a moment of “low sugars” when I did not suspect that it was rather unlikely that a website mainly concerned with cookery recipes could be the main source for wikipedia’s article on Jacques Derrida, to the point that it would have been Wikipedia mirroring it, and not vice-versa.

I suppose the original “impetus” was sheer frustration at seeing section “Intentional obfuscation” with as many as three “citation needed” in such short span. I do hope whoever contributed in the first place the statements "needing citation" (best of all), or someone patient and unyielding retrieves them and edits them in.

Miguel de Servet 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message to me, I've reviewed WP:SPAM and I do not agree with you that I have violated Wikipedia's spam policy. I also doubt whether calling my edits "spam" evinces a good faith assumption on your part. FWIW, I added the text to nine articles and not "more than a dozen articles," as you claimed.

I want to be a responsible editor and before I made the edits in question I checked several articles and noted that there were already similar entries. For example, from Eduardo Galeano:

"Recently, on January 26, 2006, Galeano joined other internationally renowned figures and Latin American authors such as Nobel-laureate Gabriel García Márquez, Mario Benedetti, Ernesto Sábato, Thiago de Mello, Carlos Monsiváis, Pablo Armando Fernández, Jorge Enrique Adoum, Luis Rafael Sánchez, Mayra Montero, Ana Lydia Vega and world famous singer/composer Pablo Milanés, in demanding sovereignty for Puerto Rico and adding their name and signature to the Latin American and Caribbean Congress' Proclamation for the Independence of Puerto Rico ..."

And from the Arundhati Roy article

"In August 2006, Roy signed a letter written by Professor Steve Trevillion calling Israel's attacks on Lebanon a "war crime" and accused Israel of 'state terror'."

--DieWeibeRose 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the reply but, with all due respect, I don't accept apologies for how other people thinks things seem to me. However, assuming good faith, on your part, I thank you for the gesture.

You say, "You're right that other such material is present in many articles, but it generally ought not to be." I'm not sure you're wrong, but this would be much easier for me to accept if I knew it was more than just your opinion--is there a policy that speaks to this particular issue? Also, I don't think the one sentence I added to the articles in question constitutes such a "lengthy description of a letter or petition" although I could shorten it--would that be acceptable to you? I thought about creating a separate article for the letter but I doubt it would survive very long and I'm not sure it should. --DieWeibeRose 22:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I think you are reading your own subjective opinion into those policies. IMO, they simply do not speak to the issue at hand in general or particular terms. I think the edits I made were both "relevant and informative" and since other editors have added similar materials, as we have both agreed, it is clear that I am not the only person who thinks this way. I think it is reasonable to assume that a reader might be interested in the current (and controversial) political activities of Ken Loach or Brian Eno. And, no, the paragraph in the QUIT! article is not "the same paragraph" as the one I added to the bio articles. --DieWeibeRose 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk Talk:New Ivy League page in New Ivy League. I would like for this to be discussed. Thanks for the message.Misantropo 23:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated New Ivy League for deletion, and I thought you'd like to participate in the discussion. Cornell Rockey 04:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Requestion's overzealous and unjustified external link deletions are really getting to be a blight, and he's now threatened to turn his blight into a bot to boot. Have you ever dealt with a vandal of this nature before, and if so, what's the best way to go about it? -Moorlock 00:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blight is that both of you keep blanket reverting my maintenance spam deletions. Thank you for calling me a vandal. (Requestion 17:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've left a note at WP:ANI if you'd like to review it and leave a note as to your perspective on it. -Moorlock 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. eserver.org diff diff diff diff (Requestion 19:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This is a completely inappropriate use of the spam warning template. Please discuss why you think these links deserve deletion rather than revert-warring. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who blanket reverted my spam deletions. Sorry if you find the spam template offensive, it is purely procedural. (Requestion 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Procedural"? Please explain what "procedure" justifies using a spam warning template because you disagree with a decision to revert a link deletion for encyclopedic reasons that have been carefully explained to you. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there used to be a really strong edit warrior from Wesleyan several months/a year ago, so it's probably him, but I don't know the details about that. I still don't think the entire thing should be deleted, though. Corvus cornix 03:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, mine is the only neutral point of view. Marxism is a failed idea, and to not mention that on the article is bias in the favor of marxism. And i thought this was an encyclopedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.1.177 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your work on cleaning up the notables on the Hampshire College article. —mako๛ 13:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rbellin,
I noticed you reverted my edit to categorize Antioch College as defunct because the college is not closed. I agree it is not closed, but, along with "deceased," defunct also means "not in use" or "inactive." I leave it to you to decide whether the category is appropriate for the college. Dkreisst 07:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Re: this edit, I just wanted to point you towards this thread User talk:Moe_Epsilon#Lists - an agony in eight fits and the replies at User talk:Quiddity#re:Lists - an agony in eight fits. You're both good editors, and the whole subject gives me a headache, so hopefully you can explain things to each other :) Thanks. --Quiddity 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of keeping this discussion unbroken, I'll reply on my talk page. Check back and reply when you get the chance. Regards, — Moe ε 03:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I finished the self references and List of academic disciplines which appeared to be the main areas of concern, so feedback on anything else there would be helpful, or anything I missed or screwed up on :) — Moe ε 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've expressed interest in the past, so I thought I'd point you towards a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Contents pages, and lists of lists on the Wikipedia:Contents pages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. --Quiddity 17:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to you, if you have a look at the pertaining policy page concerning indefinite (semi-)protection, I think , with the exception of very special pages (as George W. Bush), a permanent semi-protection is almost never warranted, as "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit". But I noticed that there are different underlying wiki-policies, so feel free to bring this upo again at WP:RFPP (I've added the article to my watchlist in the meantime). As a bythought, there have been at most 10 vandalisms since I lifted the protection (which would not merit a semi-protection). Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar 20:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed for WikiProject Critical Theory to be subsumed into the WP:PHILO as a task force. This would provide the benefit of assessment, and other infrastructure provided by WP:PHILO. The task force membership would remain the same. The philosophy project banner will provide an option to tag a page as part of the task force. This has already occurred for the Moral philosophy, Aesthetics, and Phil of mind groups.

I am wondering what is the best way to organize it. There is currently a Marxism task force, and a Continental philosophy task force. Shall we combine them all into one? Perhaps just combine Continental and Critical theory?

I have asked for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Critical Theory. Please take a look at the task force organization, and let me know your thoughts. Greg Bard 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1755 Lisbon earthquake has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this to the Rbellin entry in Talk:Academia#Default_from_.22Scholarship.22

• • • Wikipedia could redirect the page for Processor to the page for Computer because a processor is a computer. The word scholar is not mentioned on the academia page. The most direct link for Scholar should be directed to Scholasticism where it should be articled to explain its use in modern_language and links to Academia should be posted there along with any other highly appropriate links. I thought definite pages were protected from editing. Also this: Academia#Commerce_and_scholarship is horrific because it is the only reference to the word scholar and the entry is one sentence where all the other headings have large paragraphs. I couldn't have imagined scholar redirecting to this page. I am not questioning the intentions.

I am citing this reference and read the first line it is the best argument for an article of any kind - Encyclopedia.

(I would fix it if I knew how. You could do it or you could say "Full of shit". That's what I think. I don't want to be ignorant as a new user but you asked for something of scholar etc. not found in Academia and you'll find something in Scholasticism which suspiciously has no link to Academia. The word scholar does not appear on the academia page so it must be all your fault or else who knows what knows. I have to go and rub my chin now.)

ThisMunkey (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"so it must be all your fault", "Full of shit". Please try to be more polite, and less offensive, ThisMunkey. Your comments are not constructive - they only attack other editors. Fuzzform (talk) 08:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you would be available to give the Emily Dickinson article a thorough looking over? I'm kind of stuck as to where to go now, and was pushing around the idea of a "Legacy" section or something similar, but I'm not sure at the moment. Any suggestions or comments on the state of things as they are now would greatly help. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rbellin,

pedagogy.ir is not a commercial website as we don't have anything to sell! Please undo your changes.

pedagogy.ir (founded on July 2005 in Tehran, Iran) is an independent open window towards learning and knowledge construction. pedagogy.ir is developed around two fundamental and interrelated concepts: learning performance, learning environment. It is assumed that, for any effective teaching-learning activity, first, learning performance is delineated, and then learning environment architecture is designed and developed. Within this holistic approach to learning, integration of pedagogy and learning technologies is highlighted. The main role of this site is scaffolding (learning support) and assisting educational actors, policymakers, academic lifelong learners to develop an understanding beyond their immediate grasp of pedagogy and technology in emerging knowledge society. Lifelong learning is “all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competences, within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective”. Thinking about the future of learning in the knowledge-based society needs to be holistic as learning will become a lifelong activity. To ensure meaningful learning, it is essential that we place pedagogy above technology. Students do not learn from the technology; they learn from competent instructors who have been trained to assist and communicate effectively with learners through technology and well defined learning objectives based on Bloom's Taxonomy. We believe: "knowledge is power and power is knowledge". To promote higher order thinking and cognitive skills for knowledge construction, in a highly complex and competitive global world, needs to perceive the dynamic role of new technologies in learning environments.

Your kind consideration is highly appreciated in advance.

Best regards, K.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.4.171.97 (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Identification of Emily Dickinson Poems, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Identification of Emily Dickinson Poems is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Identification of Emily Dickinson Poems, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are opposed to any mention of selectivity in the lead based on your comments. Would you mind indicating your opposition under the appropriate heading just for simplicity? Madcoverboy (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the appropriate heading." I haven't yet had a chance to read through the reams of text spawned by the recent discussion on that Talk page, and can't participate in any long open-ended discussions there right now. If you point to a place where you think another opinion on some specific question would help, I'll be glad to take a look. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you have some time can you help out here? The article was a total train wreck and I made major revisions. The previous version had some material from Raymond Williams in it, but all jumbled up with anthropology and cultural studies was not named as a distinct approach or set of approaches. I deleted redundancies and fringe views and reorganized the rest so that distinct approaches were clear. That said, I am pretty weak on cultural studies. So I made a place in the article for it, but what I wrote could be off and is surely incomplete (my strength is in anthropology). I'd appreciate it if you could look at it soon and flesh out the differences between how anthropology and cultural studies understand and look at culture, clarify anything I muddled, and correct any mistakes. I do not think this article should replace the articles on cultural anthropology or on cultural studies, but I do think these disciplines provide important contexts for explaining different approaches to culture. (also, I stuck to basics ... I did not go into the most recent approaches, and this is another area in which the article needs work) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I am sure you can make good and important contributions, and time should not be an issue ... that article stagnated for a couple of years. If you get around to it next week, next month, whatever. What is essential is that the meaning of "culture" within cultural studies, and how scholars of cultural studies use the term and why, should be represented and I am not the one.

"subcultures" is tough - cultural anthropologists study them, and through Dick Hebdidge's classic book on style, I know cultural studies does too. Much of the material on subcultures was in the previous version and I think this article needs to address it. If you have ideas about how to improve the way the article discusses them, including where or how to change the organization of the article so that "subculture" is discussed more effectively and appropriately, well, I welcome that kind of help.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing you changes and additions when you have the time, thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I focus on cultural anthropology and cultural studies because I think they dominate the discourses on/of "culture" in the academy today ... but if you think there are other points of view that need to be represented, by all means add them ... my only request is that we think carefully about the overall structure as we add. I think the downfall of the previous version was when people kept adding stuff without thinking about the overall structure, and then the intro became bloated trying to synthesize all different views. I know the article needs to grow, I just hope that as it does we keep changing the overall organization so that the parts fit together in a meaningful rather than ad hoc way. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a 'seemingly random source', it was the best source I could find through google news at the time. Syrthiss (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, replacing it with a higher quality source is welcome. Syrthiss (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you may think the Communist Party did not rule France and was not the largest political party in the country (even their political strike actions fell flat on their face. France wanted the Marshall aid. But I of course know that this edit was a bit of vandalism. To call all the other edit POV in the extreme is simply wrong. You obviously do know neither Rorty nor Sokal nor Davidson nor Althusser.--Radh (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confessing that your own edits were made in deliberate bad faith, and leaving insulting remarks on other users' Talk pages, does not seem like the best route toward improving Wikipedia to me. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern. Please read this. The problem is, no one is watching all of Mhazard9's edits, so no one sees the pattern. Indidividuals who have identical concerns for different articles need to comunicate with one another. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will chewck out his edits but I think the trick is to get a few disinterested admins to keep an eye. I agree that the way he makes changes makes it hard to tell the valid minor edit from the sneakiy substantive change. By the way thanks for still keeping Sulture in mind! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Humanities are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. --

If the above was addressed to me, I think I added to the discussion page material that ought to appear in the article. But perhaps someone else would like to do it. The term "humanities" has a precise pedagogical meaning and they were taught for a reason, not because of some vague respect for the classics, but in order to train lawyers and leaders of the community to use the art of persuasion for a good purpose. This is not just "talk" but is information found in many many books over the centuries in a tradition that has been passed down virtually unbroken for two thousand years. Nor is it simply my opinion. I don't see any of this in the article and therefore think that the article is defective.173.56.164.199 (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article used to be a trainwreck and I have been trying to rewrite it to cover all academic approaches to "culture". The section on "cultural studies" is weak, and one topic that perhaps could be better explored is the idea of "critical theory" as an important theme of or infuence on cultural studies' approaches to "culture." Could you look at the section and see how you could develop it? Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd like to know that I've nominated the article Ivy_League_(colloquialism) for deletion. All the relevant cited notable information is in Ivy_League#Other_Ivies. This article is not about "ivy league" as a "colloquial" term. Its about some vague concept of "prestigious schools" which promises to be a academic booster-magnet --Work permit (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the list of removed people from the Hampshire College page onto the talk page. I think this is a better approach. If you insist that the red link vs. blue link is the criteria to use to include/remove people, putting them on the talk page allows you to see when a page for one of those people has been created (there are links from other articles for many of the people whose links you removed) so that they can moved back at that point. I think this is a better strategy that helps insure that things don't get dropped on the floor. —mako๛ 02:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im so sorry for having taken such a long time to reply, i must admit I was extremely embarrassed to have made such a stupid mistake. I did not know that using a recursive category, would bring me to categories unrelated to the starting category. In short, I did not know that one could get to non-vermont related articles, even though they may be traceable to the vermont category. I have gone through and made sure that all the articles that were tagged were appropriate (however most of my work was already done for me) im sorry to have caused you inconvenience. Tim1357 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received a message from you, that deeply violates privacy expectations in Canada, and will proceed to review litigation including injunctive relief options. You have got to be more serious in making comments to people, especially when you attempt to provide legitimate criticism. Your recent comment suggests gross immaturity and an inappropriately loose disposition, while also being patently false and upon a conservative statement of historical fact. Ask for more training, or resign, or seek out more learning on your own terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.233.205 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's policy against making legal threats immediately. The article on "Winston George N. Tannis" was deleted as a hoax; adding promotional links and references to other WIkipedia articles is not a way around that. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How dare you to abuse the Wikipedia's Reverting policy and threaten me with WP:3RR. Please, read first, what Reverting requires, before threatening.
• You accused me of an alleged violation, because of a disagreement argued by you that "the lead sentence is the place for clarity, not Heideggeresque etymological muddles". Please, be reminded that the Reverting policy says: reverting is not to be used as a way to "ignore" or "refute" an editor with whom one happens to disagree. How much do you think your point of view matters in comparison with a Heidegger's deduction. Did you publish your point of view? Is it a reference?
• My edits were labeled/I was accused of: "completely misleading etymology", "the etymology is incorrect", "you have obfuscated the meaning of the key sentence describing Husserl". PROVE IT, please!
• I provided a solid justification and references:

1. A translation of a foreign language term customarily follows it immediately.

2. The translation was correct.

3. The translation was relevant since Heidegger did it.

4. Relevant references were provided in response.

It seems my edits were made in good WP:FAITH and not to instigate WP:WAR.

• Please, do not abuse Wikipedia's policies. --71.247.231.74 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly and repeatedly been reverting the article to your preferred version, against an apparent consensus of several other (non-anonymous) editors. Please use the article's Talk page to discuss the changes instead of making ad-hominem accusations. -- Rbellin|Talk 03:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WE all can count to three (3) and 24 hours - can we...? Since when different versions are a "preferred version"...? Since when quoting Wikipedia regulations is ad-hominem...? --71.247.231.74 (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the New York Times mispelled the name of their critic in the byline, that's a bit embarrasing. I stand corrected and thanks for setting things straight. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 02:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, I jumped the gun on that one. Looking at the pattern of edits, it appeared, due to the nature of the title, the anonymous user was doing the vandalism. I have removed the warning from their talk page, thanks for pointing this out.Seaphoto^Talk 01:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to step back a little bit from this, Rbellin. I understand what it's like to put a lot of effort into an article and have others contradict what you think is best, but that is the nature of the beast here. It's right the at the edit page: if you aren't ready to have your work mercilessly edited, you might want to reconsider editing.
Previously, you cited the link to references; I would urge you to re-read the entire linked article. I feel you are misinterpreting the importance of general sources when compared to inline sources (it is one of the reasons I provided you an out by noting the section in question).
You are currently at three reverts within a 24 hour period; I've warned you both here and in the article discussion. If you continue to edit-war the article as you seem to be doing, you aren't going to leave me much choice as to the next steps in the matter. You will note that I have been pleasant while you have been condescending and impolite during this matter ("niggling policy-lawyering" is pretty uncivil).
Again, I urge you to consult with a more experienced editor and confirm what I am telling you; I have no reason to lie, and consider myself correct in this matter. I have proposed numerous alternatives, and yet you seem unwilling to consider them, instead reverting to your preferred version of the article. I hope I am wrong in my perceptions here, but you aren't providing anything approaching another view of the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3RR warning is completely spurious, as it hinges on your interpretation of my changes to your version as "reverts." Your characterization of my editing as "edit-warring" -- even while I was engaged in discussion of the relevant edits on the Talk page -- is similarly unrealistic. Please feel free to do whatever you see fit with the article, though. I am well and truly tired of disputing matters wholly unconnected to the substantive content of the encyclopedia that we good-faith editors here are (supposed to be) trying to improve. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you are incorrect, Rbellin - on a number of counts. To begin with, it wasn't my interpretation of reverts, it's Wikipedia's. You reverted three times in a row (1, 2, 3) without substantive discussion; and no, dropping your argument on the discussion page before reverting back to a preferred version (as indicated by your discussion page post, posted immediately before you reverted) isn't considered discussion. The philosophy of 'it's easier to seek forgiveness than permission' doesn't really work here - as you should have noticed by now (and again, no - WP:BOLD doesn't allow for multiple reverts). All of the work within Wikipedia works via consensus, and you didn't offer reasoned changes to the article. You simply reverted.

And frankly, I'm at the same time disappointed and sharply concerned by your behavior. For someone who claims to have all this experience (and no, 5k edits over 7 years isn't really considered a lot), you should have learned how to work constructively with people instead of becoming defensive and disruptive. As it turned out, I asked for help in order to prevent the issue from escalating into you getting blocked, and that help arrived in the form of edits in both the article and discussion that hopefully lay the issue to rest. Everybody wins.

Not sure what's going on with you, Rbellin, what with the slight paranoia and substantive incivility, but your post suggesting you might be taking a break might be a pretty Good Thing to do. A lot of people take wiki-breaks. I hope to see you when you come back, batteries recharged. Have a good summer. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3RR claim is still false -- neither the first nor the second edit you list was, actually, a straight revert; both were changes with reasonable edit summaries. Apart from this, which looks like sheer rule-gaming to me, honestly, the amazing idea that we should look at edit counts as a defining mark of quality contributions, or that vandalism-patrol and reference-dinking are in any way commensurable with actual library research, expertise, and good writing, this is exactly what drives serious editors away from Wikipedia. Thanks for replying, but I won't be participating in this exchange any further. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Okay. I'll simply sidestep all the oblique insults and simply let you enjoy your paring notes. Have fun with your time off. Come back all charged up. The rest of us "serious" editors will be happy to welcome you back into the fold. With luck, you will then realize that you aren;'t writing research papers here, and that your "expertise" is never going to be rewarded here (unless you in fact cite yourself from a reliable source). Good writing means writing for the medium as well as your audience. This is an encyclopedia, not the Atlantic or Women's Home Journal. If you are seeking creative writing expertise or library research, Wikipedia would not seem to be a good fit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article MacEdition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NOTE, WP:V with no real sources. Was kept at AfD - in 2006.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Neo-marxism for deletion, Please see: [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Close your eyes and think of England. Since you had some involvement with the Close your eyes and think of England redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Publication subvention has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this concept is notable. It's just a WP:DICTDEF.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]