User talk:Rbellin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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

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)

[edit] Shakespeare External Link Deletion

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)

[edit] Emily Dickinson External Link Deletion

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)

[edit] Account

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)

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)

[edit] RfC on Lucas

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)

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)

[edit] Anti-intellectualism

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)

[edit] False accusation

"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)"

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Thanks re:Talk:Information design‎

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)

[edit] Mapping the sciences: scientific adjectives/name of the science(s)

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)

[edit] Ivy League & Princeton motto

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)

[edit] Public Ivy

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)

[edit] Coolitude

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)

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)

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)

[edit] re:"highly selective" schools

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)

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)

[edit] Category:American university and college presidents

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)

[edit] Post-temporalism

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)

[edit] Link-spamming Derrida

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)

[edit] QUIT! Letter Signatories

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)

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)

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)

[edit] New Ivy League

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)

[edit] request for comment

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)

[edit] Requestion

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)

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))

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)

[edit] Courtesy messages

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))

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)

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))

"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)

[edit] Secret Societies

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)

[edit] The Duke

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)

[edit] Hampshire College

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

[edit] defunct Antioch

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)

[edit] Lists - an agony

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)

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)

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)

[edit] RfC on Lists and Contents pages

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)

[edit] Concerning Emily Dickinson

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)

[edit] WP:Critical theory

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)

[edit] 1755 Lisbon earthquake

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)

[edit] Re: Directives

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)

"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)

[edit] Miss Emilie

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)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.