User talk:Banno

Contents

1 KM

2 Article Licensing

3 Unverified image

4 Thanks, and discussion on animism

5 Totally disputed notice

6 Philosophy

7 mysticism

8 Begging the question

13 your contributions

KM

Greetings I have added stuff to the knowledge management page not sure if you are looking after things over there? Dgrey 03:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)Dgrey

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

interesting, but I can't see how this could work. What I have written has been substantially edited - how will you be able to extract my work from others? Banno 22:41, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified image

Thanks for uploading the image

Image:Knowledge&belief.png

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Kbh3rd&action=edit) where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 03:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, and discussion on animism

Hi Banno, thanks for your response on Talk:Agnosticism (hope your quip remains). I see you have an interest in language. Maybe you could help us with the "Comments from Daniel Quinn on article" discussion on Talk:Animism. Christiaan 11:12, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Totally disputed notice

I've put a totally disputed notice on the page Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared. I did this because Ungtss has started reformatting the page to be in the form fact, viewpoint, viewpoint. This will result in POV. Here is why:

Facts should the main point of an argument. We can divide the facts on this page into several categories. Facts about viewpoints, facts about natural phenonomen, facts about deductions from theories, facts about mathematical principles. By introducing the style given above Ungtss is letting only facts about natural phenonomen and facts about viewpoints into the article. If theory A predicts X but theory B does not the article could say that:

Theory A predicts X. Adherents of theory B say it predicts X but many disagree.

Wereas in the new format this could only be written:

Adherents of theory A believe it predicts X. Adherents of theory B believe it predicts X.

I would ask that you help remedy this problem with the article. I shall not have the time I'm afraid (See my User page). Barnaby dawson 14:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While you have my sympathy, I am writing a thesis and do not have time to become involved in such an exercise. Besides, my interest & expertise does not extend much beyond the philosophy of science. Banno 23:57, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy

Hi Banno, I saw your work on the Tractatus, and thought I'd drop in to say hello in the hope that you are a fellow philosopher. I have no far not found any on Wikipedia. It is an absence that it is very notable, not only because of the dearth of good philosophy pages, but also generally because of the lack of critical thinking seen in certain pages, particularly policy pages, in my view anyway. Are there others besides us (assuming you are one)? :-) SlimVirgin 06:08, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

mysticism

Hi, Banno. I have a question about the epistemology article, on which you've done some good work recently. I'm unhappy with this sentence but not sure what to do to fix it. "Another common example [of irrationalism] is when a person believes that someone behind their back is watching them because they 'feel' it to be the case." It seems to me that such feelings likely come about through peripheral vision, of which we aren't fully conscious. It isn't obvious that trusting in such subliminal perceptions is irrational! After all, our prehistoric ancestors must have been able to perceive out when a sabre-toothed tiger was stalking them, even if they weren't able to dress it upon a syllogism. Those who weren't good at perceiving this, didn't pass on their gene line any further! --Christofurio 22:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

The particular example is certainly not mine, and I've never liked it; There seems to me to be a push in recent edits to remove what might be a perceived criticism of mysticism - a strange thing to want to do in an article on epistemology, the rational study of knowledge. I had not deleted the material because I wanted to see how it panned out, (mistakenly, as it seems, thinking that further editing would reveal the purpose of the example). I would certainly support your deleting it, since I agree with you that it is not a good example of the sort of irrational (no condemnation implied) mysticism that I was thinking of when I wrote originated the section on Irrationalism. Banno 06:27, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made a change. --Christofurio 20:58, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Begging the question

Thanks. Sorry if the debate got a little too heated, nothing personal of course ;) Cadr 23:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Language

Hi Banno, I apologize in advance for posting here if it is incorrect. I couldn't figure out how to post a new topic. (relatively new to the whole wiki thing) I've been watching the overview page for philosophy of language, and can't figure out where to go to complain that the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language#Overview seeems to be getting less and less accurate, as well as being "dumbed" down. I checked some of the older versions of the page and they were much better. Is there a way to contact you directly to discuss the page? Barring that, how do I post my concerns and where? Thanks Karyse

Welcome, Karyse. No problem with your posting here.

At the top of each page is a tab labelled "Discussion". Click on it and just add your comments to the bottom. To start a new thread, click on the little "+" symbol next to the edit tab. philosophy of language is a bit slack, and remember that the whole idea is that you can edit the article directly - just jump in and make changes. If people don;t like them they will make their own.

By the way, you sign a post on a talk page by placing four tilde characters after it - press ~ four times. Banno 19:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Meditation

Hi Banno, I wanted to say thanks for your comments regarding my note on the talk:meditation page. I'd like to include some of those notes in the actual article, perhaps this weekend, but I was wondering if you could outline your POV concerns so that I can incorporate them. Regards--Pariah 10:46, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

their's not a lot to do - just remove the first person stuff and add a few references, and I hope it will be fine. Banno 07:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cool--thanks, and will do--Pariah 08:47, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

The block was only set for 24 hours and by the time I read your email it was already over. When I read your email I checked the block list and saw there was no longer any block on that IP. Sorry if I neglected to reply to your email. Incidentally, your scolding (This is not the mark of an effective administrator) message on my talk page is a violation of Wikipedia:Wikiquette, specifically "assume good faith" and to a lesser degree "be polite". CryptoDerk 22:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. Lack of courtesy does indeed invite reciprocity. Note that you have not so far explained why I was blocked. Will it recur? Banno 22:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

On thinking about it, I don't see my comment as problematic. My banning was apparently both unjustified and arbitrary - at least, no explanation has so far been provided; Surely that is not good administration? You have apologised for not emailing me, but not for banning me. It is puzzling to me that I should "assume good faith" on the part of someone who banned me without explanation, and furthermore that I should be polite in the face of discourtesy.

Crypto, I'm pissed at you. I think I deserve better at the hands of Wiki admin.

I didn't ban you. The block log is public for anyone to see and if you look, you can see I blocked 203.26.16.66. Specifically, for edits like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex&diff=prev&oldid=14248733), and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope&diff=prev&oldid=14248635), and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&diff=prev&oldid=14248542). If you have a dynamic IP, you might get caught in a block sometime by someone who previously used it — unfortunately it happens quite a bit. If you use a dynamic IP you can expect it to happen again in the future. I have handled this situation with the utmost courtesy, and your responses up to this point I will chalk up to not being aware about dynamic IPs. CryptoDerk 23:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

So my blocking was collateral damage, an acceptable outcome of Crypto's "War on Vandalism". None (not one) of the edits cited was there for more than one minute before being removed by another user. But although I was not involved in this incident, I was blocked for 24 hours (as, presumably, were other editors on my ISP). Isn't that somewhat over-zealous? Banno 00:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Don't overreact. IPs vandalize, they get warned, and they are blocked. Just because vandalism is removed quickly doesn't give the green light for people to continue vandalizing Wikipedia. If you have a problem with the official policies of Wikipedia then you might want to start a poll to make it such that administrators cannot block anyone — don't take it out on me. CryptoDerk 23:36, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think vandalism as important an issue as you. But I'm over the blocking, and have moved on. Banno 07:39, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have placed the following onthe user page for User_talk:203.26.16.66

This is a dynamic IP address. Please take that into account before blocking, as the IP is used by legitimate users. If this vandal persists, please contact me and I will discuss the issue with my ISP. Banno 00:52, May 30, 2005 (UTC)Banno 01:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

IP misuse

Hey Banno just thought you might like to know that your ip 203.26.16.66 is still being used for vandalism. Hope you can find a way to stop the abuse of your IP. Jtkiefer 01:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

discussions with the service provider involved, TPG, have led to some alterations that should remove this problem.Banno

your contributions

There was a time when we disgreed about something (I actually can't remember what) and had some sort of personality conflict. I just want you to know that I have never seen you make anything other than excellent, factually accurate, NPOV edits to the article namespace, and I very much appreciate that. It is editors such as yourself that make this an encyclopedia worth reading. Sam Spade 18:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are many who would disagree as to the quality of my editing, Sam. Thank you again. Banno

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Banno"