Talk:Thomas McEvilley/Archive 1

Initial cleanup

Oh hello, Tom. Yep, it's me, but keep it a secret, will you? Thanks. By the way I gave up trying to find shoes that fit and wear slippers at home now. I hope you got a new pen. As to the article, I see you made Wikipedia where Jack, James, Cedric and Alistair did not (not yet anyway). You seem to have a secret admirer who has not yet written a user page. I hope you teach him/her how to spell and write in English.

I see Tom as an art historian but if there are more suitable categories certainly put them in. You know where the category list is but if you don't, start your search under help. Just as a review for those who may have forgotten, Wikipedia is not for presenting resumes or plugging yourself or anyone else in a sales sense. Therefore I toned down the florid writing style to something more encyclopedic. Also, Tom, we can only put in here what has already been said on the Internet or elsewhere. I note you also have some reviewable books on Google. Good work. There shouldn't be much of a problem getting some data on you. No original research can go in here. You do the research, publish it, and then we can put a summary of it in. By "we" I mean anyone at all who can read and write and wants to work on Wikipedia and is willing to behave himself and follow the policies. By the way I find the description of the latest book somewhat inscrutable and I don't think it is me. If someone could go over that putting in the appropriate links to supporting ideas I will not have to throw a "confusing" template on it.

PS. Has anyone got a nice picture of Tom he/she would be willing to donate to Commons? Wikipedia tries to show people at their best. Bonne chance.Dave (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

to all concerned parties

Please allow me to edit out the incorrect biographical information in this article I wish to leave the brief and accurate bio with the list of selected publication these can be verified by anyone at any book site or the basic web please do not mistake this for random vandalism I am committed to helping preserve a valuable reference for those seeking research in his fields PLEASE do not keep re submitting this nonesens aslo- I do not know how to change the first sentence--it is simply not true Dr McEvilley no longer teaches at Rice or anywhere else can someone please delete that? thank you jdb 76.15.46.220 (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

This needs much better sourcing, especially since the sources contradict each other. Is he a professor at Rice U. or at the New York school? I don't think either one of the sources is an independent source anyway, since they both have vested interests in the subject. This article needs independent reliable sources, especially since some of the claims are a little outre. Corvus cornix_talk 01:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

as I have been trying to tell you

he doesn't teach at rice or enywhere else the whole narrative has no validity except his publication list it is referenced on his publishers website listed Mcpherson and can easily be verified on any book site amazon, google, its what I am trying to do please stop re submitting this nonesense jdb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.46.220 (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence

The current lead sentence is derived from the here, which states:

• Thomas McEvilley is Distinguished Lecturer in Art History at Rice University, where he has been on the faculty since 1969...

Now the User:76.15.46.220 has been removing the lead sentence and more, stating here that:

• Thomas McEvilleys wikipedia entry both inaccurate and frankly embarrassing everything written other than a concise listing of his publications and the very brief bio above it is grossly inaccurate, out of date, and rather embarrassing Dr McEvilley is a respected author and I am sure scholars looking for info on him would be happy to find a good list of his works the only legitimate additions would be publication dates added and more entries on his journal contributions

this narrative about his family and past history ,his teaching record are absolutely not true'. names, dates, institution--not correct. PLEASE allow me to edit out this narrative and keep it out this person who keeps putting it up is the vandal not me

I think this critic is highly unlikely. I have no reason to question the first source by the Slought Foundation. So please keep it this way unless a more reliable source states otherwise. -- Mdd (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear MDD the slought reference is not quoted anywhere on the page.

• Follow the link it is a short but out of date bio the bio that some fool keeps putting up is not right
• why do you people keep replacing it?
• what other scholar has people speculateing about their families money or ???

PLEASE stop vandalizing this entry by putting info about teaching positions that are decades out of date incorrect family names please have some respect for a distinguished scholar and do some research before you condem my contribution

Stop putting this crap up here - 76.15.46.220 (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK first sentence--who wrote this?

what reference is there

Toms father was not a banker

his fiorst novel was not a success he never had writters block

if you want this to remain supply a source!

jdb00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)~

Thomas McEvilley is the son of a Cincinnati banker of some means. Considered brilliant but often erratic in school Tom wrote a successful novel as a very young man, which earned him some acclaim. Subsequently developing writer's block, he entered a period of intense soul-searching in which he was trying to decide what to do in life.

Ok, if we take some time to sort this out, we can easily find a solution. But this takes some time. If you continu changing this article... we don't. -- Mdd (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

HOW? SENTENCE BY SENTENCE? FACT BY FACT? TELL ME HOW? THIS SITE OF YOURS IS NOT AT ALL EASY TO USE AND THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME! JUST START BY READING THE SLOUGHT REF--IT IS ONE PARAGARPH NOT WHAT YOU HAVE ON HERE JDB76.15.46.220 (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy. No problem. We start with reliable sources. You have stated that the next source

• Short biography

is not reliable. Yes or no? -- Mdd (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a second source on him:

• McPherson & Company publishes

Is this second source reliable. -- Mdd (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

mCpHERSON IS HIS PUBLISHER AND IT IS RELIABLE BUT OUT OF DATE HE NO LONGER TEACHES AT sva FOR ABOUT 2 YEARS AGAIN, NOTICE THAT NONE OF THE LON WIKI BIO COMES FROM THE MCPHERSON SITE?JDB01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't realize. So:

• He is a writer and a publisher
• He has been teaching at "SVA" untill 2006.

What do you mean by "SVA", the New York School of Visual Arts? -- Mdd (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I started making some improvements in the article based on this information. I will see what I can do with the rest tomorrow. -- Mdd (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Is or isn't the Slought Short biography reliable. -- Mdd (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The stuff about his family

You request to remove the stuff from his family. I will explain latter -- Mdd (talk)

The redundant stuff about his books

You requested to remove the redundant stuff about his books. I will explain later. -- Mdd (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence

The current lead sentence is:

Thomas McEvilley is an American Art critic, poet, novelist and scholarly writer and lectured at the School of Visual Arts.

would be better as

Thomas McEvilley is an American Art critic, poet, novelist and scholarly writer. Italic text

he has lectured taught or headed departments at many schools--this is in the past and not in the least important you are looking at out of date bios 76.15.46.220 (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I will respond to this item only here. I will leave the lead sentence as it is, for the following reasons:

1. Multiple sources have confirmed that lectured at the School of Visual Arts
2. You argue: this is something from the past. I say, that that doesn't matter. Wikipedia article mostly write about the past.
3. This person has clearly worked in the education. This is not something we are going to cover up.
4. Now there is more. I guess you as 76.15.46.220 are Thomas McEvilley or somebody close related or/and you seems to be interested in only the current information. Now Wikipedia is not a service offering homepage information, only one person would like the people know.
5. We use secondary sources to compose and article. And use the data we can find.

So if you have any thing to say about this. Please respond here. -- Mdd (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

hi mdd

first Mceveilley has written none of this

he simply expressed concern to me when many of his x students and collegues contacted him to let him know this horrible article was so prominent on the web

where are you getting these sources from? are you actually reading the sources?

he NEVER lectured at SVA- he was the department head of the art criticism and writting department for 2 years

saying he currently lectures there is simply not true-- he formed the department!

if you want to list his past teaching jobs fine but do not lead students to beleive he teaches at an institution when he does not past information is fine but wouldn't you prefer it to be true and relevent?

please take out the stupid unsourced information about his family and early education

please remove incorrect synopsis of his books

the denson reference does not even have the correct title

I have offered you sources

have you read them?

jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not have the slightest idea about how to properly talk to you?

what exactly do you want me to do?

I respond here --then you respond somewhere els?

the only time I seem to get a response is if I remove a sentence?

I will stop removing anything but why are you so convinced I don't know what I am talking about? it is really really easy to confirm if you read the sources you keep citing

do you get the "lecturing" is not the same as originating department head"?

do you get that his sons name is misspelled? that his family has no bearing on his academic biography?

do you understand about privacy issues in a family?

wouldn't you prefer for books to have correct titles?

wouldn't you prefer to have book description actually describe the book?

jdb17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are doing all right if you respond here. But you should wait untill we sorting things out and agree on things. It just take some time. Ok? -- Mdd (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you stop asking me ten questions at a time? Can you please comunicate directly? -- Mdd (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok one question at the time. Thomas McEvilley has x students. Where did he teach? -- Mdd (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thomas McEvilley is founder and former head of the department of Art Criticism and Writing at the School of Visual Arts in New York City. In addition to teaching at Rice University for many years, McEvilley has lectured at the Yale School of Art, Chicago Art Institute, The Graduate Center, CUNY and others.

he is not an art historian he is an art theorist / art critic and classical philologist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.46.220 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I made some changed in the first sentence. Can we leave it like that. Yes or no? -- Mdd (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

no please before you decideto leave something as permanent can you please actually read what I have sent you what I wrote below? pleasejdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean by " worked at sva"? was he the janitor? jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is permanent in Wikipedia. And there are 5 more items we can discust. At the moment I only want to discuss the lead sentence. If you don't like it. Want do you like to change here? -- Mdd (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the lead sentence for the moment. We can add extra information later on. But I hope this is acceptable for the moment, and we can move on to the next item. So is it or isn't it acceptable? -- Mdd (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ok -- jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

but what is wrong with the lead sentence I have been trying to add for the last 2 months?

Thomas McEvilley is a scholar, critic, poet and novelist who has written several books and hundreds of articles, catalog essays, and reviews[1] on both ancient and modern art and culture: On early Greek poetry, philosophy, and religion as well as on contemporary art and culture.[2]

-- 76.15.46.220 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with that sentence as lead sentence?

1. It doesn't mention the nationality
2. It doesn't tell what kind of work he did beside his writing? And where?
3. It's irrelevant what particular kind of work he wrote and how many of them in the lead sentence.
4. It doens't tell us when and where he was born.
5. Most of the time the lead sentences don't give an overview of a man's writing, but mentions the work that made him notable.

We just have a standard in Wikipedia to mention some thing and leave other things out. Should we continue with the next talk-item? -- Mdd (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

you said --"but mentions the work that made him notable." his work is writting--nothing but writting--teaching is something he had to do to eat why mentionhis job withoiut mentioning his actual work? do you get the difference between the 2? go ahead talk about his teaching job but the only reason someone would visit this bio is to find out about his writting lets say you are a chaos theorist but you have a job as a waitress to pay your rent do you want your lead sentence to be about your waitress job? or about the writting you did on Chaos theory? I realize you think I am an idiot but your method just makes no sense

ok whats next? jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See, next step. -- Mdd (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

no I don't see what is the next step where do you want me to go? jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I mean next item: 2. The slought short biography. Here below. I already added a question. -- Mdd (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Current discussion items

2. The slought short biography

the slought is correct if you cut out the teaching ref--it is out of date as well he no longer teaches at school of Visual art HE DOES NOT TEACH he is NOT a publisher he is an author why not just leave the short bio just above his book list? it is acurate and dignified and used on his book jackets or go ahead and copy the slought bio without the teching info the slought is just some little art org where he did a one night lecture a long time ago please take out the stuff about his family the redundant stuff about his books etc since I am not allowed to thank you jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. This Slought Short biography seems to be written by the Thomas McEvilley himselve. It also states:

To Cite this Page using MLA Style:

Thomas McEvilley. "Art and Cognition." Slought Foundation Online Content. 11 December 2004;

I still assume this source is right. I will replace this source in the article. And I won't remove the teaching reference as I will explain latter. -- Mdd (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok next step. A small step. A simple question. Is or isn't this source reliable? -- Mdd (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

wow maybe there is a language problem--are you an english speaker? I do not speak anything but english so I cannot tell you in any clearer way as I have said about 5 times the slought web site has a very short very out of date bio about McEvilley it is fine--it is Ok but it says he teaches at Rice he no longer teches at rice now for the really important detail please listen carefully in all your concern over this slought source NOWHERE IN THE BIO IS IT QUOTED WHY NOT GO AHEAD AND QUOTE IT INSTEAD OF ALL THIS INCORRECT STUFF ABOUT HIS FAMILY AND OLD PROFESSORS? HOW MANY TIMES DO i NEED TO SAY THIS? JDB76.15.46.220 (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC) HEY MDD WOULD YOU LIKE TO ENGAGE IN A REALLY RADICAL REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS? TRY READING THE LITTLE SLOUGHT PARAGRAPH! THEN [PERHAPS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT i AM SAYING AVTUALLY READ IT --IT WILL TAKE ABOUT 2 MINUTES JDB76.15.46.220 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker. I am from Holland. But I knew enough English to make 10.000 changes to the English Wikipedia in the last year. Some of them even made it to the Wikipedia main page. One of them is the systems art article, and that is the reason why I am here. I will respond further tomorrow. -- Mdd (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I like to remind you, that I raise this question because of your previous comments:

1. ... this narrative about his family and past history his teaching record are absolutely not true. names, dates, institution--not correct. (04:34, 20 March 2008, see here)
2. ...Dr McEvilley no longer teaches at Rice or anywhere else can someone please delete that? (04:02, 22 March 2008 here on this talkpage)
3. ...he doesn't teach at rice or enywhere else (04:25, 22 March 2008)
4. ...the slought reference... is a short but out of date bio the bio that some fool keeps putting up is not right' ... stop vandalizing this entry by putting info about teaching positions that are decades out of date... (00:30, 3 April 2008)
5. ... the slought bio without the teching info the slought is just some little art org where he did a one night lecture a long time ago ... 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
6. ... the slought web site has a very short very out of date bio about McEvilley. it is fine--it is Ok but it says he teaches at Rice he no longer teches at rice ... 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And then we have one of your last comments:

• ...I HAVE EXPLAINED MYSELF A MILLION TIMES! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE DID YOU READ ANY OF MY POSTS? HE DOES NOT TECH AT RICE OR YALE OR ANYWHERE ELSE FOR MANY YEARS HIS FATHER WAS NOT A BANKER HIS SONS NAMES ARE NOT CORRECT AND WHY OH WHY WOULD ANYONE PUT THAT UP ANYWAY? PEOPLE NEED TO FIND HIS PUBLICATIONS BUT THEY NEVER WILL SINCE THE BIOGRAPHY PUT UP BY A MAN OFF HIS MEDS WHO ONCE WAS IN SCHOOL WITH mCeVILLEY 40 YEARS AGO IS SO LONG AND STUPID AND UNINFORMED MY GOD HE IOS ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL ART CRITICS OF THE CENTUIRY WHY DO YOU ALLOW SLANDER AND LIES TO BE GENERATED ON THIS SIGHT READ THE SLOUGHT BIO FOLLOW THE LINK IT IS ONE PARAGARAPH AND SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ERRONEOUS FIRST NOVELS AND WIVES ETC. PLEASE SHOW SOME iq POINTS AND ALLOW THIS BIO TO BE CLEANED UP IF THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO HIS FATHER FOR INSTANCE WHY ALLOW IT? HIS PUBLICATIONS ARE REFERNMECD ANYWHWRE ON THE WEB AND HIS LISTED PUBLISHER MCPHEARSON WHY LABEL ME AS A VANDEL AND NOT GO AFTER THE INSANE FOOL THAT KEEP ADDING THIS STUPIFD BIO? JDB 76.15.46.220 (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read it all, and I realize:

• On the one hand your telling the teaching records are absolutely not true
• On the other hand you advice to read the Slought source

I think I understand what the problem is.

• The Slought source is true, and his teaching records were true on the time it was written in 2004. So now in 2008 it simply out of date.

Ok I can leave it with this. Shall we continue to the next discussion item? -- Mdd (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

go for it jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

MDD I see you have a web site--it looks very interesting

may I please use your contact from the site to comunicate with you directly?

I simply do not have the time to continue to search this site for your answers--please! we can get this cleaned up without so much formality.

thank you and I await your permission

jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I will end the next four talk items tonight, add some comment and make some changes in the article at once. You can always send me an email but it will take me a view days to respond. -- Mdd (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

hi please can you send the talk item questions to me in an email? I just can't keep coming back here I will email you now thanks jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion items

3. Biografical details 1

The article states:

Tom McEvilley studied in the Classics program of the University of Cincinnati. Receiving the B.A. from there he attended the University of Washington briefly but left to return to Cincinnati as a graduate student. By then he was married to the former Marion Macmillan and had a young family of three boys, Tom junior, Alex and Monty, to support.

there is no source for this without a source why not delete it is not essential even if it was fully accurate

his family members names are spelled wrong ( insulting and hurtful) and don't need to be mentioned in the first place

no source take it out jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the names of his sons serve no purpose her. But I will keep a reference needed tag on the other information. Sooner or later we will get that confirmed. I am sure of that. -- Mdd (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Biografical details 2

The article states:

At Cincinnati under the tutelage of Alistair Cameron and James Vail he developed in interest in ancient philosophy, especially any possible interface between the pre-Socratics and eastern religion/philosophy. He also retained a strong interest in modern art, reinforced by the modern artists of his acquaintance.

where is the source?

what is the point of including this?

it is inacurate anyway--(for instance Vail taught poetry not history of Philosophy, he is not a modernist nor are his artist friends) and under your rules without a source it should be deleted

yes?

I look forward to a cleanedup bio tomorrow -- jdb 76.15.46.220 (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I will add an reference needed tag here. This text is written from a neutral point of view and it tells something about the teachers he had in Cincinnati. -- Mdd (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

5. The 3th source

The 3rd source that refers to the section someone added --

heads its form tails its not content

is totally wrong.

The title of the book is

• "Capacity: History, the World and the Self in Contemporary Art and Criticism (Critical Voices in Art, Theory & Culture)" by Thomas McEvilley (Author), G.Roger Denson (Author, Editor)

you can read practically the whole book on google

• http://books.google.com/books?id=l1SKiuj_7igC

jdb -- 76.15.46.220 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I corrected that link -- Mdd (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

6. The following section

The following section

The Shape of Ancient Thought.

After more than 30 years of research, Dr. McEvilley's book The Shape of Ancient Thought,[2] traces and outlines the pollination of ideas between India and the ancient Hellenistic cultures, from earliest known times to modern thought.

is incorect redundant and uses sloppy language to boot please tell me where the source comes from? if you find no source please remove it

the description of the book is incorrect anyone can find a synopsis like the one from Allworth Press the publisher which reads thus:

This unparalleled study of early Eastern and Western philosophy challenges every existing belief about the foundations of Western civilization. Spanning thirty years of intensive research, this book proves what many scholars could not explain: that today’s Western world must be considered the product of both Greek and Indian thought—Western and Eastern philosophies. Thomas McEvilley explores how trade, imperialism, and migration currents allowed cultural philosophies to intermingle freely throughout India, Egypt, Greece, and the ancient Near East. This groundbreaking reference will stir relentless debate among philosophers, art historians, and students.

Source: http://www.allworth.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=1-58115-203-5&click=1258

jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I shortly rewrote this section. It's still far from perfect but I think it is a start. -- Mdd (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

I'm here in response to Mdd's concerns here. As someone noted above, this article's info is currently not verifiable and additional citations are needed. Until these sources are found, one person's word against another's is not cause enough to remove and/or replace text in the article. Time should be spent on discussing where to find reliable sources to back up the information, not reverting back and forth. Personal knowledge of the subject matter is not good enough -- please see WP:CITE.

Would it be helpful to ask an admin protect this page until a compromise can be made here on the talk page? María (habla conmigo) 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to find some more notable sources. I just added one. I am also just starting to come on speaking terms with the anominous editor. I think a lot of what he is saying is true. His intentions are good. But this wil take some more time. At the moment I think we don't need an admin. If I need one I will contact you. Thanks again. -- Mdd (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin myself, so no need to contact me personally. :) You could always request protection at WP:RFPP. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 18:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Article updated

I updated the article and archived the last discussion. -- Mdd (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I made some complementary corrections based on the emails of User:76.15.46.220. In these emails some addition requests have been made, which should first be talked about here. I think the current article is still far from perfect, but complies with the Wikipedia standaards for a class=Start and a class=B article , see Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/Assessment. This means:

• The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element.
• Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR).

The key element here is Thomas McEvilley main work: His writting as an Art critic and scholarly writer. The current descriptions in the work section are merely stubs, where any editing or additional material can be helpful. -- Mdd (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New request by jdb

Thanks for updating the article it is much improved. There are several things I want to change. I will list a few now starting in the biography section:

1. "...By then he was married to the former Marion Macmillan and had a young family to support[citation needed].": - please delete--there is no source for this and it is superfluous
2. "... At Cincinnati under the tutelage of Alistair Cameron and James Vail he developed in interest in ancient philosophy, especially any possible interface between the pre-Socratics and Eastern religion and Eastern philosophy.[citation needed] He also retained a strong interest in modern art, reinforced by the modern artists of his acquaintance.": please delete--there is no source for this and it is inacurate
3. "...After receiving a PhD in classics ": please delete--this is repeated in the preceding paragraph and is inacurate--his degree is classical philology
4. "McEvilly accepted an offer in 1969[4] from Rice University where he had a partime job as professor, while having a successful career as an author.": this is inacurate and unsourced--there is no mention of a job offer--he was never a part time professor--as stated in the lead sentence he held the position of distinguisted Professor of Art history at Rice University[1] this should not be restated in this way.
5. "He also taught numerous courses in Greek and Indian culture, history of religion and philosophy.": - this is a repetition of the paragraph under the heading WORK please remove it it is not stated in a complete form and is repeated

Thank you jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Here is a request to delete five parts of this article. I will explain why I will not reply to any of these requests. First I will give a comment on all these five points:

1. "...By then he was married to the former Marion Macmillan and had a young family to support[citation needed]."

Now:

1. This sentence is allready been refraised three times:
   1. By then he was married to the former Marion Macmillan and had a young family of three boys, Tom junior, Alex and Monty, to support.
   2. By then he was married to the former Marion Macmillan and had a young family of three boys, Tom junior, Alex and Monty, to support.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
   3. By then he was married to the former Marion Macmillan and had a young family of three boys to support.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
   4. By then he was married to the former Marion Macmillan and had a young family to support‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .
2. As I stated before "I agree that the names of his sons serve no purpose her. But I will keep a reference needed tag on the other information. Sooner or later we will get that confirmed. I am sure of that. -- Mdd (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)".
3. The argument given by jbd in email makes little sense: no source for this--now I realize you do not believe in experience but I can tell you absolutely his children were not all born at this time--he had one son at that time his other boys names are misspelled and have no business being mentioned anyway. what relevance does one of his ex wives maiden name have here? would you like to list all of his wives? his lovers? his dentist? if you can find a legitimate source I will eat my hat please delete this!!!!.
4. So, the latest statement is confirmed here by jbd in this email, when jds said "he had one son at that time".

2. "... At Cincinnati under the tutelage of Alistair Cameron and James Vail he developed in interest in ancient philosophy, especially any possible interface between the pre-Socratics and Eastern religion and Eastern philosophy.[citation needed] He also retained a strong interest in modern art, reinforced by the modern artists of his acquaintance."

Now:

1. jbd has already confirmed the relationship between Alistair Cameron, James Vail and Thomas McEvilley: ...Vail taught poetry not history of Philosophy, he is not a modernist nor are his artist friends)...jdb 76.15.46.220 (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
2. The only problem here seems the word modernist.
3. There is a fact required tag added and this will improve sooner or later.

3."...After receiving a PhD in classics "

Now:

1. This should be deleted because it repeats and says classics is stead of is classical philology!?
2. Sometimes things are repeated in the text to express continuality.
3. The problem can be solve here if you just change classics into classical philology.

4. "McEvilly accepted an offer in 1969[4] from Rice University where he had a partime job as professor, while having a successful career as an author."

Now:

1. The job offer is just a matter of speaking
2. The mentioning of part time can be removed. But this is merely a response to the email statement by jdb that he worked only one day a week. So jdb mentioned he worked part time. I added that to the text. And jdb comments that there is no source of it so it should be removed.
3. And last but not least. All things in the articles introduction get repeated in the article itselve. That is just the way it works.

5. "He also taught numerous courses in Greek and Indian culture, history of religion and philosophy."

Now:

1. This is indeed a repetition of the paragraph under the heading.
2. Sometimes things get repeated in a article

These are my reasons. As I commented above, there is still a lot to improve in this article. -- Mdd (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

please leave my personal emails out of this--I tried to email you you refused to use that most convenient and time saving form so I am trying to comply with this process that you insist on jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked to email me because you felt incapable of finding the respons here. There is nothing personal about the emails you send me. -- Mdd (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sooner or later we will get that confirmed. I am sure of that." what reference book? article?etc. do you expect to confirm this with? what relevance does someones ex wifes maiden name have in this article? the citation needed note has been up a long time--I thought the wikipedia requires sources to be stated and confirmed--this is not. why are you so fixated on this information? jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok so it his his ex wifes maiden name. Maybe we should add that now he is divorced and lives in New York City and in upstate New York in the Catskills? -- Mdd (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like to repeate a comment given five days ago by María:

• I'm here in response to Mdd's concerns here. As someone noted above, this article's info is currently not verifiable and additional citations are needed. Until these sources are found, one person's word against another's is not cause enough to remove and/or replace text in the article. Time should be spent on discussing where to find reliable sources to back up the information, not reverting back and forth. Personal knowledge of the subject matter is not good enough -- please see WP:CITE.

• Would it be helpful to ask an admin protect this page until a compromise can be made here on the talk page? María (habla conmigo) 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed like to spent time on discussing where to find reliable sources to back up the information. So jbg could you supply any more good sources. -- Mdd (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And another thing. You asked: "Sooner or later we will get that confirmed. I am sure of that." What reference book? article? etc. do you expect to confirm this with?...??

The answer is real simple here. The same professional writer or journalist, who wrote those things in the first place, or someone else, will write them again in his bibliography somewhere sometimes and then we will confirm this. And the reference tag can be replaced. -- Mdd (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

mdd I just don't have the amount of leisure time that you do this is to me rather insane what literary or web reference do you have for giving any information about his private life or his marriages? do you get it? plural if you list one wife would you like to list all of his former wives? google it go to a libraray there is no source. what is your problem with this? there is nothing in all the anals of literature that discusses his ex wife. without a reference you need to remove it you say:

The answer is real simple here. The same professional writer or journalist, who wrote those things in the first place, or someone else, will write them again in his bibliography somewhere sometimes and then we will confirm this. And the reference tag can be replaced.

I am telling you there is no professional writter who wrote that it is the person dave who originally wrote all of this stuff here on wikipedia from personal conjecture--it is not nor has it ever been nor will it ever be sourced! do you personally plan to write a professional published biography that states these things? shall we wait 20 years for you to publish it? I ask again--why are you obsessed with this inane information? jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my work rather insane after spending more then 20 hours trying to explain how wikipedia works.

• You apparently have no idea, given the attempt your contributions here which was no more then a huge copyrighted violation with material that is completly useless for Wikipedia articles.
• The person who wrote most of the information you keep complaning about is a respectable wikipedia user, who frequently created high quality articles.
• You only seems to be interested to delete every bit of information.
• You are feeding all kinds of desinformation.
• You haven't given us not one tiny bit of a source to back up all the comments you make.
• You have repeatedly violated the requests not to refert the edits made to this article.
• You have the most horrible way of adding comments, asking ten questions at the time, filling inbetween with all kinds of speculating.

And then you have the nerves to call my way of working rather insane. -- Mdd (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should ask you some direct question:

1. Are you willing to improve the article?
2. Can you deliver some more reliable sources?
3. There is a very easy way to get results here. Are you interested?

-- Mdd (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

yes but you don't understand a thing I say I am not trying to add anything to this article I am trying to get unsourced comments removed that is all the information I tried to add a long time ago is totally relevant to an encyclopedia entry on the author it is about 2 legitimate scholarly journals that dedicated whole issues to academic discussion of The Shape of Ancient Thought they do not mention ex wives or any other personal speculation about the author that you feel is so important they are actual referenced journal issues. So I can't give you sources when you beleive anything published is irrelevant. what exactly has this honored wikipedia guy done in the real world? why does his personal speculation need no sources? you don't seem to be interested in actual published material just personal speculation and I have been very confused and frustrated becouse the rules of wikipedia specifically say all info needs sources I do not want to delete everything just the things that have no source. so what hoops do you need me to jump through now? jdb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.46.220 (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

First make a draft version

Yes, you want to improve the article, then improve the article. But first make a draft version:

• So I made a point on your user page User:76.15.46.220. Here you can properly introduce your selve.
• And I created a new start for you User:76.15.46.220/Thomas McEvilley (new draft version), where you can make a draft version of your own article.
• When you finish that draft, you can make a proposal on this page to replace the existing article here with your new article. If we still don't agree, we can organize a vote about this.

I have explained the way we work, the things we do, the procedures we use to improve the article. Please, just show with that draft version, that you have actually something to contribute to Wikipedia. This is what you wanted in the first place: A chance of your own to make this a better article. -- Mdd (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you have you own alternative road to improve this article. Any changes or deleting content in this article, by you or any sock puppet will be considered vandalism. -- Mdd (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

now you are calling me a sock puppet? I do not even know what that means!? if you wish to insult me please do so in plane english what is a sock puppet?'' I don't have this kind of time.

I just want you to remove unsourced statements you have taken off some of the worst things but why with such a fight? please allow me to repeat--I have opposed statements that have no source--you knwo which ones they are and you know they have no source in literature or any media. I have also tried to help with grammer and basic copy editing--this is not vandalism it is to make the article not sound stupid with unfinished sentences inproper grammer ect.--

I have not deleted anything from the hallowed holy pages of your wikipedia for many weeks since comunicating with you on these discussion pages and the only reason I deleted the unsourced material before is that I thought the wiki was for everyone to use . it took quite a while to find out that they have a wiki police force and that users like you are the only ones allowed to contribute . I am just trying to help this scholar, I have no plans on contributing to this wikipedia other than to help get these erroneouse statements removed .

maybe I can find time to do as you demand maybe we will just have to find another way to get this libelous material removed or learn to live with it. it seems like such a simple matter--we have asked for your help you have refused. you seem to be obsessed with McEvilley but he doesn't know you. I have asked you mdd continuousely without answer--why are you doing this? jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You appaerently have no idea, what I am talking about. I only meant that:

• The changes you proposed are unacceptable for the reasons I gave above
• You shouldnot start making this changes anyway under a new username or a sock puppet, see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

Please stop manipulating, vandalizing, twisting the truth around, and ask ten new questions after I answer one. Stop wasting your own and my time. Do something in return. -- Mdd (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And keep it simple. Just make a draft version on your own userspace here. Then we can talk about it. More of the same discussion here leads to nowhere. -- Mdd (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One last word about that alleged manipulation:

• Jdb's states here: "I have no plans on contributing to this wikipedia other than to help get these erroneouse statements removed".
• Just five days ago jbd pratically erased the whole article, see here
• In a pervious attempt allready three months ago, jdb jammed the whole article full of copyrighted material, see here in an attempt to recreate a whole new article.

These actions are the complete opposite of "no plans on contributing". This is what I call twisting the truth around. -- Mdd (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a minute here! Stop!

I'm in a position to know a few things about Tom and I can say what is true and what not. That's all I'm going to say about that. It struck me that some people here and I'm not saying who and I'm not saying who that person might really be wants some things said and does NOT want other things said. That's fine with me and Mdd it should be fine with you. Here is what is true and what is not. Well yes, he did marry Marion and had three boys. I did NOT give the names of those individuals and they probably should be taken out! Maybe you should leave Marion out of this also. She subsequently became a college professor and I heard had a predilection for the kind of student who goes to class barefoot, but that last is just a rumor. Any doubt you had in your mind ought to have been cleared up now. I put that statement in there only to show that Tom like everyone else had to work and suffer to get where he is, wherever that is. I thought that might have some relevance in a biography. This is a man of experience and suffering not an art fart (excuse the expression). Granted there are some people with innate talent who have it pretty good and didn't have to suffer. Tom and his friends aren't among them, but I wouldn't say that and if you prefer an article that concentrates only on the work and not on the man go right ahead. Now, Cameron and Vail is quite true. They are bit more obscure. Vail worked on the Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books. He also taught Linear B among other things. Tom was quite interested in Linear B. He is known to have said they should take a bulldozer to Mycenaean sites so as to look for tablets more quickly. So, jds, whoever you are, you are wrong. Look at Tom's magnum opus, the shape of eastern thought. He was working on that in graduate school. Who do you think taught ancient philosophy there? It was Cameron, in case you didn't know. Tom himself said it took 20 years to write that as an article (it came out first in article form) in some blurb or other. Also jdb I am afraid he did know modern artists. How do you think he got aside into that when he was originally a classicist? And that's another thing. Cincinnati does not offer a degree in classical philology. Check it out buddy. They've never had a real philologist and don't have one now. Their forte is art and archaeology and they specialize in the Bronze Age, although Boulter was pretty well known in classical art. He taught sculpture. So just back off. The degree is in classics. As for the part-time job at Rice, no way. That was his first full-time job. It was in mythology. As for the Greek and Indian culture, I don't know exactly everything he taught but he did teach himself Sanskrit and made trips to India. Look here, you're writing about a person Jack Caskey considered exceptionally bright and therefore entitled to a certain tolerance not granted to others. Well it seems clear that Mdd is right, jdd is to some degree being obstructionist and somehow disinformation is getting in there. Mdd, you should be aware that Tom often moved in circles of people who would think this prank amusing. Jds, I'm not suggesting you are one of those, and for sure you couldn't be Tom, but give us a break here. You are denying the true and asserting the false, no doubt about it. Here is what I would say. From the moment Tom published his first article he could not escape from publicity. Therefore the public is entitled to know something about him. But, he is entitled to some privacy. So, Mdd would you consent to take out the family stuff? If he does that, Jds, would you consent to stop falsifying the rest of it? If you were to ask Tom, Tom, how about if you took back everything you wrote and agreed to fade into total darkness without so much as a number on a Linear B tablet, would you do it? I thought so. So, let's give Tom a proper deal, some biographical information but not too much. I leave it to you two to agree on this.Dave (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sound fair. I have removed Marion's name and the "part-time job", which came from jdb anyway. -- Mdd (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisit

Well, I declare. I saw the first part of the video. I think I see what is happening here. It is neither as paranoid as I supposed nor as fine-tuned as you two supposed. It is very simple really. Try relating to someone in ten minutes a complex situation that happened over years. It can't be done so you simplify and categorize. Tom says he got a degree in classical philology. When you two hear that you think there is a piece of paper out there with classical philology written in gold letters and that you can or could major in philology at Cincinnati. That isn't what Tom means. You see, philology is not an explicit topic of study any more. It was replaced basically by linguistics and absorbed into related literary fields of study. It is true Tom is in effect a philologist and so is anyone who trained there. That is what they trained to do, take texts apart. They are not and were not explicitly called philologists but to say that they are is not wrong. It is just a way of simplifying and presenting the topic. Some people concentrated more on the literature and some more in the art and archaeology. But naturally we Wikipedians with our insistence on precision aren't accepting any generalizations or explanations. That's fine, but it does lead to this kind of discussion and conflict. Tom would probably say we like to conflict. Maybe we do. So really there are a lot of small errors in here which crept in inadvertently. For my part I apologize for egging this thing on. I should have have looked at the video to start with and I probably should finish it. If any names got called I apologize. Tom if you happen to read this I apologize some more. I am pleased you had a great career. The catskills are really great but New England is better. So what to do now? Well it is quite a research project to ferret out all the inadvertent simplifications and say exactly what the matter is. That sort of thing is usually done in a book on someone but the problem with these modern personalities is that unless you are on the screen there usually isn't much on you. I've run into this with other people I've tried to write about. What I am going to do here is remove the questioned material even though it may be true. If anyone finds the blurbs please do put it back in. In that way neither one of you has to win or lose. Now the errors that are in there, to hell with it. He didn't get an MA at Washington and he was not long at Harvard but so what. It would take him and us longer to state the real case than we would want to spend on Wikipedia. He is a somewhat charismatic fellow, always has been. I don't know of anyone else who has had all this discussion spent on him except maybe Richard Johnson. Well good luck old fellow as we ride off into the sunset and do enjoy yourself on golden pond. I know I am having a good time. I love this Wikipedia stuff. I got to get back to the Indo-Europeans now. Encyclopedic work isn't philology but it is just as interesting.Dave (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the adjustments on the article yourselve. -- Mdd (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry ??

The lastest removal of content in the article, see here exactly in the line of User:76.15.46.220 removal attempts, rises the speculation if a sock puppet has rise. I allready wearned User:76.15.46.220 that:

• You shouldnot start making this changes anyway under a new username or a sock puppet, see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

Now I think this cannot be a matter of Sock puppetry. But I will set one wheel in motion as I stated in my previous comment anyway. I will request an admin to check it. But I assume good faith, and this is just a precausion. -- Mdd (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

listen I do not even have one username let alone a second one for your paranoid accusation if that is what you mean by suckpoppett

it looks like you created a userpage for me

other than that I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about

please just delete the whole conversation and write whatever you want

if I have time to edit on the userpage you made I will do so at some later date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.114.48 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am merely trying to determine what is happening here. Did or didn't you or somebody in your surrounding alter the article today? -- Mdd (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

mdd wrote "Just five days ago jbd pratically erased the whole article, see here " I did so at the request of Thomas McEvilley I replaced the personal speculation with a list of his publications and a short bio

Looks like I'm not quite done yet - that is what I suspected you know - thanks for your honestyDave (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

the copywrite infringement you keep mentioning was trying, also at his request, to put up information about the academtic journal that devoted a whole issue to his book the shape of ancient thought

he and I felt it was more interesting than Daves personal college recollections nothing personal Dave but it is just the way it is no prank just the facts--his books and a short professional bio is what he prefers we tried to erase what was here and put up the book list many months ago

I don't mind - as I said I envisioned what I said as a temporary expedient. I got to caution you though - One is not supposed to publish oneself or write about oneself on Wikipedia. It is no more appropriate for Tom to determine what goes in here than it is for me to fluff it out with my college recollections. I admit, I was a grad student with Tom. If you look through here you will see a lot of user pages that formerly were author-written articles. I started by saying, Tom, you can't really write about yourself on here. You know that I am sure but the bottom line is, what is said is not in your control. A good many authors would like to add to or remove what is said about them on Wikipedia. That having been said, let me thank you and him for steering us to already published material we did not observe before. I think that is legitimate and as long as no one else publishes any details that we can find (there are quite a few of us) you can keep it the way it is.Dave (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I naively thought i would from time to time add a corrected publication date to the list--little did I know that mdd was absolutely obsessed with this article. he still won't say why?

Well, I wish you would not be so hard on mdd and let's all make up, hey? He's a good editor and was only following Wikipedia policy and rules. You have to remember you did not present a frank facade and how was he supposed to know you are not some peevish child? He could proceed against you on Wikipedia for that. In total frustration he finally turned to me for help. Perfectly legitimate. You might not be so lucky next time especially if Tom gets magazine articles published about him that can be used for sources. I've seen a lot of nasty things said about nice people on here because someone else published something about it. But, that was never MY intent. As a prolific writer and interesting observer of the contemporary scene (his travel dialogues are outstanding) Tom should have a decent article on Wikipedia. I don't see how you possibly can avoid Wikipedia, Tom. There are over a couple of mil articles here now. They have the capacity to publish detailed information about the entire society. It's a civilization-altering mass media tool not the rarely-read organ of the privileged few as were the publications of our day. I don't think even Jimmy Wales suspected this would happen when he invented it. It's a major "happening" not just a staged event in an abandoned subway.Dave (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

now I do not have as much time to devote to this as you guys but I will try to make the draft you ask for and if not then Tom will contact someone -- becouse mdd has a lot of problems with comprehending sourced material as opposed to personla point of view and has big probems with english--it also seems he has not read any of Toms work as he has put up book synopsis that support mdd's systems art agenda but have little if nothing to do with Toms work. And he aperantly has never worked with a copy editor--I am trying to help but he takes it as a threat i guess. its just embarrassing in terms of the fine work Tom has done in the field to have something like this in clear sight.

I understand your view but I don't think you are giving mdd a fair assessment. True this is a privately owned facility made available to the public as a charity but the founder's intent was to throw this open to peoples of all classes, nations and backgrounds. We welcome all input, but once one has made it, of course, one must run the gamut of criticism. It is not for us to condemn mdd but to correct his English. In my experience he does pretty good with only minor errors. In not too long a time he will be fluent. We work things out. Once something goes on here it is no longer the editor's or author's property and can be edited mercilessly. Don't be one of these people who loses his temper and says every possible cutting thing he can think of to say. Next thing you know you will be getting a little message from an administrator to the effect that he doesn't find your edits helpful. If you then want to continue without getting blocked that should be a sufficient hint. By the way you are quite lucky not to have as much time. I sure wish that were still true of me.Dave (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

almost the entire long discussion here has been mdd missinterpreting every thing I say and me stupidly trying to reply to someone who--well I don't quite know what to think-- I refer to him fondly as the wiki gestapo.

Ho ho ho! Many an editor has said that. People are just people. But, take the overall view for a minute. If there were no rules, if there were no administration - what do you think this would be? I think, all ads, pornographic, slanderous and libelous, a vehicle for every screaming fanatic who can insult in English, a vast and meaningless babble of the masses with no sense and no direction - why would Jimmy bother? You got your point across legitimately - just leave it at that and cross your fingers. Think positive. There are some really terrific articles on here.Dave (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

it has become a tedious punishing experience --I am not here to "win" I am trying to clean up this article in a way that McEvilley wants. at this point it is both content and the atrocious grammer and sentence structure!

OK, so YOU aren't here to win. If you say so. Be careful now. Insofar as you or Tom are just trying to clean up an article by Wikipedia standards you are on solid grounds. You discovered me and I did not have the proper citations. But, you don't want to say, the article has to be the way Tom wants it because it is about Tom. Self-promulgation or advertising is not allowed. I've deleted a lot of that on Wikipedia. Don't be punished my good man. Take it from me I know by experience it is not good for you. This is just negotiation. Nothing personal. Oh by the way, did you know this material is accessible by Internet? This is a public conversation and might turn up anywhere in this whole wide world.Dave (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying with no result to confirm that the wikipedia rules say nothing should be submitted without a source? and Dave, your contribution includes personal recollection. a truly sourced entry would be much much much shorter and filled with information about his writting not his personal life--I am glad that a lot has been removed but it really took a lot of work on my part to get mdd to do so ( since I am not allowed ) and there is a lot more. jdb69.86.114.48 (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have copied the current article into the draft version page on your userpage. Here you can develope as much a you like. If you think you have improved that draft version, let us know here. And we can talk about it. Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the obsession here is all yours. I am simply persistent:

• I started here fighting, what was already considered to be vandalism, by Corvus cornix, Casull and Master of Puppets, see here

• Then I tryed to make sense of your tirades, see for example here, and all your smoke screens.

• Beside making improvements to the article, I explain all objection agains further deleting content of this article, step by step. See for example here

In response you attact me by claiming "mdd missinterpreting every thing I say". You explained that you violated copywrite on McEvilley's request, which doesn't make it right. You reward Dave for removed two last statements in the article, which he did after I made a firm requested to respond here, see here

We should put our efforts in improving the article instead of continue quarreling. I have offered you a fair and simple alternative, to first make a draft version on your own userspace here. If you continu in this insulting way, I will set some other wheels in motion, to stop it anyway.

I wish you and Thomas McEvilley all the best in improving this article, but if you or he thinks he can make this Wikipedia article his own personal homepage with only recent information and only information he wants the audience to have, I believe you and he are in the wrong place. -- Mdd (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

@jbd. Fine. But some personal biography should be in there and eventually will be. As for the sources, well, things that are common knowledge don't need sources - you can't possibly source everything that can be said. It's an art not a science. If it is a specific point of view we need to know whose and if technical meterial we need to know where from. If someone asks for a source and other people agree one is necessary then it should be in there. You wouldn't need a source that New York is a city but if you said it was a brash city then someone might want to know who thought that, and it would have to be a notable thought by a notable person, not just your buddy. If you are the only one who thought that, well, we aren't interested in what you personally think. That is the problem with having Tom work on his own article.Dave (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Tom the civilization in which we knew each other has vanished away. None of the conditions that were true then are true now. Nothing I may have said you previously has any current validity. My email is on here should you feel inclined to use it. If not, I understand. See you in the articles (or not). Ciao.Dave (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Further

I still don't know what a suckpoppet is. I don't have a username just that page mdd created for me. I nor Mcevilley want a home page.

for the umpteenth time-- I just tried to do a little copy editing.

I did not realize there was this huge vandal issue on this site. when you accused me of vandalism ( when I sincerely thought I was doing something completely innocent by deleting unsourced personal info that now has indeed been removed ) I assumed you all were the vandals. I did not know that this site requires a complex and labyrinthine process. I regret ever trying and I apologize to all you men for anything that upset you.

I will never participate in this discussion again, I have not touched the article since mdd started communicating with me weeks ago nor will I ever edit it again.

if I have time I will draft something only on the page mdd made for me. other than that I will never participate here again in any way except to request that this discussion be removed. ( Dave do you have this authority or is there a customer service section I can appeal to?) I believe this is a reasonable request as I see much has already been deleted that I added. Please consider my request.69.86.114.48 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All previous discussion is archived in Talk:Thomas McEvilley/Archive 1. And in due time we will also archive this discussion. -- Mdd (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply interrupted by the archive

Gee, I don't know. The only way to get anything off Wikipedia is to mark the article for deletion for a specific reason. I considered doing that for non-notability but I do not think it will fly. Tom's a Semple Prize recipient, a great honor. Someone might actually do an article listing all the Semple Prize recipients. Many men of lesser repute are on here. The problem is, nothing anyone saves on Wikipedia ever goes away, ever. They have the storage space to do that. Every word you or I ever typed on here is accessible unless the article was deleted. I cannot delete an article. I am not a system administrator and only they can do that. I have enough experience to propose myself as one but I do not do so because it is mainly police work and I want to work on articles. Wiki needs police, make no mistake about that. One can work weeks to do a beautiful, true and informative article and in a few minutes some Internet jerk can destroy the whole thing and then send you an untraceable message saying, "how do you like that, jerk?" I'm not sure you realize that more people read these articles than any article written by any global academic in any academic publication! Right now what the academics (including Tom) have going for them is quality control. Our way of tying into that is to require that we use their authority. It's a pyramid. I am sorry your reaction is so adverse. Many do have that reaction, others take it in stride. This is a whole different world. I guess Jimmy Wales got tired of having the great mass of people screened out of education and debate by the social net and decided to do something about it. There is nothing the academic world can do about it. Too bad. The good side is we rely on you very much. Your status and your sales are going to be and are being very much enhanced. Fame is often hard to take. You have to learn to bask in it naturally or you are in for a rough time. If we are the pop photographers, what are you going to do, beat us all up? Anyway you are entitled not to have your creative material stolen. You are entitled not to be slandered and libelled. Whatever the law says you are entitled to, you can force Wikipedia to give it to you. If the issue is outstanding enough Jimmy Wales will personally intervene. If you want to try and pull strings start clicking on some of the more official icons on the main page and work your way up to the committee that runs things and send them some email. Otherwise, whatever is said on Wikipedia stays on Wikipedia. What we can do for this discussion is what someone already did for the first discussion, archive it. Anyone can do that I believe. Look under archiving in the help boxes of the main page. But, it is still on the Internet and might pop up in anyone's Internet search. Usually though it fades away unless someone goes to all the trouble of accessing the archive and who wants to go to all that trouble? This is quick info here. Well I don't really have all this amount of time, but think it over. Try your hand at a few articles, see how you like it. I guess I sort of got more used to having abuse dumped on my head so I don't mind it so much as I used to and if I forget, why, I have a family to remind me. But you are definitely in the top echelon of the pyramid, which gives YOU power if you know how and care to use it. But as far as being the divus McEvilley, professor on a pedestal, is concerned, forget it. Wiki is iconoclastic. You ought to see the the way the great professors go for each other! Everyone's human I suppose.Dave (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)