User talk:Bmorton3

User talk:bmorton3/archive1 June 2 - Sept 20 2006

As of OCT 4 I am now officially on Wiki-vacation until further notice My Chairperson has instructed me to cease working on Wikipedia until such time as my publications are in-line with tenure expectations, so I suspect I will be gone indefinately

The Inestimable Barnstar of High Culture

Thanks, Lac!

Cats

Hey B. The cats are a bit of a mess to begin with: there are too many of them IMO and there's massive horizontal and vertical duplication.

In reply first to your last post on Astrology, the policy and guideline do disagree. The policy obviously gives primacy to majority scientific opinion and suggests that it ought to be brought to bear over-and-above the dissent of non-science opinion (i.e., the scientific view is held as more important than total consensus in adding content). And to repeat what I said on Astrology talk: if that (IMO, seriously flawed) bullet point from WP:GL can be used to override a categorization, our categories would suffer greatly. Intelligent design, for instance, would not be categorized as pseudoscience (given that some would obviously dissent), which would be a serious error in the presentation of accurate information.

As for 1, 2, 3, 4, I'm not sure if I wholly follow you in how these relate to the Astrology discussion. I suppose I agree with 3--significant minorities can add cats, but that would come with its own caveats. A significant minority of non-scientists should not be used to place something in a science cat, for instance. Marskell 18:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "over-and-above" I did not mean a form of censorship, i.e. presenting the scientific categorization as the only one at the expense of how believers (for lack of a better word) would categorize it, and in this sense I don't think we're interpreting NPOV that much differently. To phrase it as a simple question: if we have a half-dozen cats that astrologers agree with, why shouldn't we have the one that scientists would (especially given that NPOV defines the majority opinion vis-a-vis science)? I agreed with protoscience for instance (as a source or two was presented once upon a time). Where we seem to part company is this idea that we should be more circumspect with the cats than the body. Why? We must represent the majority scientific viewpoint as such; this should apply both to the body and the categories. Your analysis of of Intelligent Design, for example, I find baffling. Admit in the lead "An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific" and then demur in categorizing it as such? And, IMV, the sentence you quote from the end of the pseudo-sci para on NPOV is not a rebuttal to SPOV so much as a clarification that it doesn't need to be a stick: present the minority views, sure, and present the scientific view as majority (not least because the scientific view is generally more verifiable and follows an NPOV method). Why wouldn't this include categories?

Again, to invert: what I find scary is that dozens of fringe topics on Wikipedia might be left in the hands of "believers" to decide on presentation in the absence of watching from others (same is true, in a different way, of polemicized political topics). Nowhere does policy tell me that I should interpret categorization distinct from pages in this regard. And yes, policy—when you've been around long enough, you realize there is a qualitative difference b/w policy and guidelines. There's flaws in all of them, but the policies, especially the big three, have been scrutinized and are watched like no other pages in the Wiki namespace.

Finally, one last point repeated: I find little solid argument that astrology is termed pseudoscience is a controversial fact. What is true is that some people (who are generally into astrology) don't like the fact. These are two distinct points. That mainstream science calls astrology pseudoscience (or something in that vein) is a slam-dunk. And again, the disputation of adherents of a given topic cannot be used as loophole to avoid critical categorization. Marskell 21:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps you feel that because of things like WP:IAR, you can discount guidelines you disagree with, but not policies." Again, I discount guidelines where I feel they contradict policy. I have explained why I feel that this is the case here and we disgree. What your suggestion amounts to is giving adherents a veto over categories, which I find unacceptable and does not appear to be the wiki practice. Note, for instance, that Category:Gnosticism is a sub-category of Category:Heresy. Re "termed", I just meant that it would be a different thing if there were some dispute the label is regularly applied to astrology.

Continuing to debate this probably won't go far unless taken to a wider forum. But I would suggest NPOV talk, not the guideline talk. As a last thought, Wiki defines a loophole as "A weakness in a law that allows it to be circumvented". I consider the GL bullet to be a loophole because it allows people to circumvent the normal application of NPOV. Marskell 10:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N & G

D@mn good start but 2 noticeable problems 1. The word gnostic in the east is not a bad word in christian circles or platonic ones examples; Clement of Alexandria, gnosiology. Just professing or using gnosis was not bad, but only bad if so in a false prophet way, Platonic, Pythagorian, Neoplatonic and christian cross pollenation and sharing of terms would not make someone a "gnostic". It seems that you imply that everyone's a gnostic (from the intro to the book and conference, BUT do not acknowledge the cosmology of the sethian text enough to clarify that the cosmology was the main characteristic, that and that "secret" teachings -gnosis- was what got the groups ostracized LIKE Alexander of Abonutichus and his Glycon. .This is why I wrote this..

"Another was to separate and clarify the events and persons involved in the origin of the term "Gnostic". From the dialogue, it appears that the word had an origin in the Platonic and Hellenistic tradition long before the group calling themselves "Gnostics" -- or the group covered under the modern term "Gnosticism" -- ever appeared. It would seem that this occurrence of the misuse of the word "gnostic" today leads people to confusion. People seeking a higher truth through knowledge (rather academic or spiritual since Plato represents both) could be easily confused into thinking they were "gnostics" rather than "philosophers". This tradition of sectarians taking Greek terms and so misnaming themselves or misusing the terms seems to have continued with not only the platonic philosopher's traditions but also the Greek and Egyptian Hermetic ones (see Alexander of Abonutichus for one example)."

Accuse me of poor articulation but I consider the point neccasary.

2. To little Neoplatonic specifics. What specifics did Plotinus say like the truths of gnosticism being nothing but stolen over from Plato. Or what changes specifically did Plotinus make (I would argue clarify) to Plato understanding.

Also the gnostic/Islam link I understand might be little unscholary but it is consistent with the "common" understanding of gnosticism. Although I wish to find a better tie in say the druze and sufism.

I do think it is a vast improvement you write much better then me:>) LoveMonkey 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you (even if you get alittle, yes ALITTLE) revert and stingee edit crazy on the articles. THEY ARE FANTASTIC. I think they can be posted whenever the general one is sourced. The missing parts can be added and brooded over, on the fly. U da man! PS I wonder if we could somehow cover "problems with a physical God" like say misotheism and dystheism in the general article. LoveMonkey 14:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm I'll have to look a little more carefully at this in a while, but I meant to say something about the revert crazy stuff. I cut more than maybe I should from the draft of the outcomes of the conference part, and a few other places and I wanted to make sure you looked back over it. In one or two places I disagreed, but in most places I just wasn't sure of your English (which is pretty good and no doubt better than my Greek). If there is stuff that I've cut that you want back in, it might just be that we have to hash out the English rather than any real disagreement, so feel free to put stuff back in. Or to point out dumb errors (like Zeusnoos did on my Fathers of Gnostic Christianity article, eesh). The Gnosticism/Islam/Sufism stuff is valuable and appropriate, its just that I don't know any good sources, and I'm sure I'll slip into OR if I try to write it. (That was one of my first OR's back as an undergrad!) Bmorton3 16:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey lets post the articles.

LoveMonkey 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

monad

Hey could you give me some advice on this page? LoveMonkey 04:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent thanks for the arbitration. You da man! Hey check out this new nebulus mess I created Misotheism

LoveMonkey 05:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I hope all is well so whats left on posting the N & P? Also do you have any sources for this article? Declamatio. LoveMonkey 01:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Square of opposition

Hello - I left a message for you on the talk page of the article above. Dbuckner 10:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I thought the article Logical quality was wonderfully obscure (not your treatment of it, the subject itself). But very interesting all the same. Keep it up. Dbuckner 10:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPS The first sentence of Logical quality has a curious grammar. Dbuckner 10:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er as I often do, I screwed up the 2 halves of the wiki-link, now its fixed Bmorton3 14:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The List

Just wanted to mention that I've enjoyed the discussion (and especially your contributions) on the List of political philosophers, probably primarily since I am not a philosopher and the discussion doesn't cut as deeply for me as it does others. Still, as you say in your user page, there is definitely a conflict between expertise and hobbyist, and between OR and NPOV there that I find most interesting... DukeEGR93 13:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another example

Soteriology is a greek christian term. Why are cross religious examples that really don't apply to what the term is used for BY greeks in the article? Should not these examples be added under the general term salvation? I mean I can see leaving the greek philosophy terms but why the Islamic and Buddhist ones? I mean would it be appropriate from me to add greek christian and Hellenic concepts to Japanese religious term articles, but here's some shinto'ism? LoveMonkey 13:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck!

Best of luck with your OR publishing. Zeusnoos 18:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America's importance in the modern world

Can you tell me which are the fundamental contributions of the United States of America to the modern world life? Codice1000.en 17:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Dammit, I am staying off Wikipedia but I couldn't resist this bait. Here is an overly long answer I should never have written.

Why Should We be Proud of the USA?

On Oct 30, I was asked by an anonymous Italian, “Can you tell me which are the fundamental contributions of the United States of America to the modern world life?” Whew! That’s a tall order! The United States of America has made a HUGE number of contributions to the modern life of the World. There is plenty for us to be ashamed of too, but it is good to reflect on what we can be proud of.

100 Important contributions to modern life for Americans to be proud of! (I’m only listing here items that I think are mostly positive, still important today, and clearly developed or led by America or Americans)

1. Rock And Roll

2. Motion Pictures

3. The Marshall Plan for helping to rebuild the world economy after WWII.

4. US innovations in electronics (circuit breakers, integrated circuits, AC transformers, transistors, semi-conductors, microchips, etc)

5. US innovations in consumer electronics (washing machines, dish washers, dryers, electric lights, personal sewing machines, electric razors, electric toasters, vacuum cleaners, microwaves, etc)

6. The development of the modern public school system (pioneered by Horace Mann)

7. US innovations in electronic computing (ENIAC, IBM, the ABC calculator, Apple, etc.)

8. Airplanes

9. American private donations to international charities

10. Hand-held cameras (both Kodak and Polaroid)

11. America’s university system, especially for graduate education

12. America’s financial, military, and civilian support of the UN (including both public and private donors)

13. American contributions to medical technology and the FDA

14. Oral contraceptives

15. America’s military participation in WWII

16. Jazz

17. Polio vaccination

18. The development of commercial telephones and cell phones

19. Video games

20. The US Space Program

21. Electric trains, trolleys and mass transit (we don’t use ‘em enough ourselves anymore but we pioneered them for other nations)

22. Giving Europeans fleeing WWII a home

23. Decimal coinage

24. American contributions to modern written literature

25. American contributions to materials technology (nylon, vulcanized rubber, stryofoam, celluloid, bakelite, teflon, tupperware, etc.)

26. American contributions to sound recording technology (Phonographs, records and tape recordings, microphones, etc)

27. Merck’s work to eradicate river blindness

28. American contributions to television technology

29. The Panama Canal

30. American contributions to other genres of music (pop, country& western, classical, etc)

31. American television programming

32. America’s role in the creation and evolution of the internet and web

33. The Academy Awards system

34. Arcwelders

35. Artificial sweeteners

36. Contact lenses

37. Modern elevators

38. Scotch tape

39. Photocopiers

40. Fiberglass

41. Submarines

42. Frozen food

43. Helicopters

44. Broadway, and the Broadway musical genre

45. Comic books

46. The Smithsonian

47. Modern vaccination (for less extreme problems than polio)

48. The Kinsey report

49. Westerns as a genre

50. American contributions to dance

51. Magnetic Resonance Imaging

52. Ball point pens

53. Walt Disney

54. American contributions to children’s literature

55. Cash registers and other business machines

56. Amazon.com, Ebay.com, and American cyberculture

57. Bifocals

58. American contributions to gay culture and gay liberation

59. Role-playing games

60. Bubble gum

61. the Global Positioning System

62. The 5 and dime, and now Dollar Stores

63. The Richter Scale

64. Denim jeans

65. America as a tourist destination for international tourists (#3 in the world)

66. American contributions to science fiction

67. Consumer Reports

68. Safety pins

69. Hip-Hop

70. Synthesizers

71. Peanut Butter

72. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

73. American developments in the department store

74. Aldo Leopold and other American contributions to Environmentalism

75. Margaret Sanger’s work with birth-control

76. Other US Museums

77. Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein and Pop Art

78. Rollerblades

79. Chomsky’s Structural Grammar

80. John Kenneth Galbraith and Veblen

81. Einstein’s theories of relativity (Prussian? Einstein had published these before moving to the states LinaMishima (talk))

82. Feynmann’s Quantum Electrodynamic (QED) theory

83. Deming’s work on Statistical Quality Control

84. Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter

85. John Cage

86. Strauss and Howe’s theory of history

87. Other American contributions to fashion, cosmetics and perfume

88. W. V. O. Quine

89. Joseph Campbell

90. Van Neumann, Conway, and Game Theory

91. Weiner’s theory of Cybernetics

92. American contributions to psychology (Moreno, Erikson, Mead, etc)

93. Cook’s Illustrated

94. Jackson Pollock

95. John Rawl’s theory of justice

96. American contributions to anthropology

97. Nozick’s theories of the minimal state

98. The theology of Neibuhr and Tillich

99. Cesar Chavez

100. Starhawk and the Reclaiming tradition

101 Blues (how did I miss that?)

102 Tennessee Williams

103 Internet

104 Wikipedia

105 Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy online

106 Routledge " " (Nope British)

107 high-energy particle physics (we have a share but its pretty international)

108 Crick and Watson discovery of DNA (British, Mostly done in Cambridge and London LinaMishima (talk))

109 Human genome project (not a fan)

110 Fax machine (nope, Verne did the concept work, and Japanese companies built the first and led the industry)

111 E-mail

112 Google search, photos, etc.

113 Blogs, forums etc..

114 resolution of Fermat's last theorem

115 Wallace Stevens

116 TS Eliot (Sorta British)

117 Ezra Pound

118 Leo Fender (stratocaster, telecaster, etc)

119 Les Paul

120 Charlie Parker

121 John Coltrane

122 Charles Mingus

123 Miles Davis

124 Silvia Plath

125 Marianne Moore

126 Robert Lowell

127 Thurgood Marshall

128 Civil rights movement

129 Feminism (Lots of origins)

130 Sexual revolution

131 cable television

132 air conditioning

132 artficial lighting

133 artifical heating

134 Thomas Edison (inventions too numerous to name)

135 Artificial Intelligence research (Turing did some of the early work)

136 Satellite television

137 Unix operating system (ALL others followed from that)

140 Computer programming (NO! BRITISH! TURING developed it first)

141 Assembly languge

142 Fortran

143 Cobol

138 C and C++ programming langauges

140 Java, Javascript, etc

141 OCR software

142 langauge recognition software

143 neural networks

144 cognitive psychology and cognitive sciences

145 thorazine, lithium, and the liberation of millions of imprisoned mentally ill all over the planet from concentration camps

146 CD and DVD technologies (Nope both were more Japanese than US led, and indeed the Dutch! company Phillips was pretty instrumental in both!)

147 smart bombs (you may not like war, but these do make them one hell of a lot less destructive)

148 heart transplant and open-heart surgery!!

149 the Neo-Darwinian synthesis and rediscovery of Mendeliam genetics as mechanism of heredity

150 insulin treatment for diabetes (or was that British?, actually that is a mess, France, Romania, and Germany all had early successes here, but the 1923 Nobel committee credited the first practical use to a University of Toronto team in Canada. The US Eli Lilly company pioneered the first large use on humans though.)

What else need be said? The US IS the fucking -modern world. (--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important “contributions” that are not entirely positive (IMHO, most of these should be on the top 100 if you value them rather than being more ambivalent as I am).

1. Brand loyalty marketing

2. Car inventions and car culture

3. American contributions to industrial agriculture

4. The atom bomb and nuclear energy

5. American leadership in NATO, G8, OECD and other international political bodies

6. Other American innovations in advertising

7. Tobacco

8. Levitt and the modern suburb system

9. Chain businesses and franchising

10. Fast food

11. The Cold War

12. American contributions to sports and sports culture

13. Bottling machines and the rise of soft-drinks

14. The Windows operating system

15. American blockbuster writers and the neutering of literature (Clancy, Cook, Crieghton, Follet, Grisham, King, Koontz, Rice, Steele, Tan, etc)

16. Disposable diapers

17. American consumption of imported illegal drugs such as cocaine or heroin

18. Gun technology developments (like silencers, or machine guns)

19. America’s contributions to pornography

20. Burbank and modern plant breeding

21. Skinner and Behaviorism

22. The Great Chicago Strike and May Day

23. The International Landmine treaty of 1998 (and pulling out of it in 2002)

Important contributions that are no longer entirely “modern.”

1. Cheap Cotton and the Cotton gin

2. Older US Literature (Burroughs, Burroughs, Capote, Chandler, Crane, Cummings, Dickenson, Ellison, Twain, faulkner, Fitzgerald, Frost, Gibran, Ginsberg, Hawthorne, Heinlein, Hemmingway, Kerouac, L’Amour, Longfellow, Melville, Poe, Plath, Puzo, Sinclair, Steinbeck, Whitman, Williams, etc)

3. typewriters

4. Pragmatism: Dewey, James, etc

5. Cowboys

6. Hubble and the Expanding Universe

7. Rogers and Astaire

8. Benjamin Franklin

9. Beatniks

10. Tap dance

Bmorton3 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad!! I could expand this list ad infinitum too, if I think about. But what interests me is to invert the question as follows:

Can you tell me which are the fundamental contributions of Italy to the modern world life?

Mussolini? Fascism? Silvio Berlusoni? LOL!! I'm sick of this fucking fifth-world country (Italy) and the idiotic arrogance of the losers who mostly populate it. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Almost everything good in the modern world, from science to culture to buisness has been created by lots of smart people from different parts of the world valuing each other's contributions, and working from them. (Kinda like Wikipedia, or Popper's view of the open society). The US is not the modern world, many countries working together are the modern world. But I agree that idiotic arrogance is one of the big blocks to this. Bmorton3 16:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I'm seeing, at point 2, Motion Pictures. Why American? Codice1000.en 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to read, I'm seeing, at point 4, Circuit Breaker. Why American? I don't want to misuse your talk page, but I'm reading and I can't withheld myself to notice some things. Codice1000.en 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated circuits?

Transformer?

Transistor?

I do not dare to insinuate these errors, probably oversights, be due to an incorrect education. I won't ever say it. Codice1000.en 16:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, i'll confess You one thing: I have to go, I will read the continuation of Your romance tomorrow. Goodbye. Codice1000.en 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Circuit and Microchip is the same. Codice1000.en 08:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washing machine?

Dryers?

Electric light?

Sewing Machine?

And if the Toaster didn't exist?

Microwave?

And if Horace Mann didn't exist? (He is important about as the Toaster)

As I stated the criterion was "clearly developed or led by America or Americans." Now, motions pictures were essentially invented and developed by the French Lumiere Brothers, but America led the motion picture industry from 1910 to the present, and only recently has the share of global motion pictures made by American companies fallen below the majority (it was still the hefty plurality last I looked). My information claims that the circuit breaker was invented in 1925 by Hillard, the integrated Circuit by Kilby, Noyce and Texas Instruments in 1959, the MicroPROCESSOR in 1968, by 3 American companies around the same time (1968) (You're right that "Microchip" is used loosely for 3 different things, one of which is the integrated circuit, but anohter of them is the Microprocessor). The ELECTRIC washing machine, in 1901 by Fisher (non-electric ones go back at least to Medieval Bulgaria, but I figured what I meant was clear by listing it in the category of consumer electronics). The Microwave OVEN (frequently just called a microwave in colloquial English) was invented in America in 1945, although of course microwave radiation was discovered and explored earlier by folk of a variety of nationalities (the term "micro-wave" wasn't coined til 1931 though, and by an American). I stand by all those claims with suitable linguistic clarifications. Would you like to challenge any of that?

I should have said the INCANDESCENT Electric light, 1879, Edison (The Brit Humphrey Davy demonstrated electric Arc Lamps in the first decade of the 19th century, and various other electric lamps were created before Edison's, I was certainly mis-educated on that one). Likewise, my world almanac claimed the sewing machine was invented by Howe in 1846. WP disputes this, see sewing machine but admits that the credit is frequently given to Howe. The inventor of the "Lock-stitch sewing machine" was Hunt, another American in 1834. There were earlier chain-stitch machine patents granted, although many didn't work and priority is disputed. (Also the commercial manufacture of Sewing machines was long dominated by Americans), so I'll admit to being kinda wrong there too.

My claim was not that electric toasters are very important, but that they are part of a broad over-all pattern of Americans adapting electronics to consumer uses, which is collectively pretty darn important. The history of public education is considerably trickier. Sparta and Scotland have a lot to be proud of here, but the US has a lot of leadership to be proud of too (probably because of the mix of early Democracy, Protestantism, and Scottish immigrants). In addition to Mann and Dewey, and folk like that, some American states made public education compulsory for the first time since Sparta. Mass secondary education was developed by the US, and had the world's highest enrollment rates in post-elementary education by 1910. American led the world in pushing public education from the late 1830s to WWII, and that has shaped everybodies lives a lot, and been imitated many times. So I'll admit that point 6 is complicated and Scotland deserves a good share of the glory but I'll mostly stand by this one too. Bmorton3 03:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers are an odd one, since their research and patenting was done by English and Frenchmen (seemingly within the UK), but the designs were then bought and commercialised by a US company LinaMishima (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Reasons to Be Proud of Italy

I just did 60 hours of grading and beat my deadline by 4 hours, so suck it up if I spend an hour or two playing on Wseless wikipedia things ...

Italian Contributions to Modern Life 1. Italian contributions to cuisine (far too many to name, but some get there own stand out positions later) 2. Italian contributions to Renaissance and Baroque painting and architecture (Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael, etc.) 3. Italian contributions to modern coffee, (the invention of espresso, Francesco Illy’s invention of the modern espresso machine, Ernesto Illy’s work on the biochemistry of coffee, the development of darker roasts and barista culture) 4. Italian contributions to Renaissance, Classical and Romantic Music (Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Rossini, etc.) 5. The electric battery (Volta 1800) 6. Radios (Marconi) 7. Telephones (Meucci in 1871) 8. Pizza (both the ancient version, and Raffaele Esposito’s modern version from 1889) 9. Nitrogylcerine 10. The barometer 11. Electroplating 12. the Piano 13. the Peano (Arithmetic) 14. Opera as a genre 15. the Violin 16. Galileo (built and explained pendulums, telescopes, the law of falling bodies, thermometers, etc.) 17. Da Vinci (created ideas and designs for but did not actually build a HUGE host of inventions that are now important: helicopter, tank, concentrator for solar panels, calculators, double hulls, plate tectonics, anatomy work, hang glider, continuously variable transmissions, machine guns, programmable robot, parachute, diving suit, sub, etc.) 18. Fermi’s work on quantum theory 19. Other Italian contributions to mathematics (Legrange, Fibonacci, Cadano, Gini, others, and some below and above) 20. Italian contributions to football 21. Italian contributions to auto-racing and sports cars 22. Marinetti’s Futurism and the development of the 20th century avant garde 23. Italian contributions to cinema (Bertolucci, Life Is Beautiful, Fellini, The Bicycle Thief, Francesca Bertini’s role in creating the movie star, etc.) 24. The Slow Foods movement 25. Umberto Eco 26. The Pareto distribution 27. The name “America” from Amerigo Vespucci’s relentless self-promotion 28. Giocomo Casanova’s contributions to the arts of love 29. Montessori’s educational ideologies 30. Francis Assisi and Thomas Aquinas 31. Carlo Blasis and other Italian contributions to ballet and dance (Cecchetti, Taglioni, etc. 32. Other Italian literature I'm not familiar with to judge (such as Pirandello, Malaparte, Morante, Moravia, Svevo, and Calvino).

Mixed bags 1. Roman Catholicism 2. Fascism and Italy’s role in WWII 3. Christopher Columbus 4. Ancient Rome’s legacy to the world 5. Machiavelli 6. Fermi’s work on the bomb 7. Italy’s role in the G8, and as the 7th largest GDP in the world. 8. Fiat, Agnelli, Finivest and Bertlusconi ;)

Older 1. Ancient Rome’s many contributions to world culture good and bad (including as dbuckner points out Cicero!. 2. Dante 3. Galileo’s Astronomical theories 4. Avogadro 5. Electroshock Treatment, 1938 6. Older Italian contributions to Philosophy (Bruno, Vico, Ficino, etc, maybe even Croce) 7. Gladiatorial games 8. The Spaghetti western

There are a lot of folk of Italian descent living abroad too. According to WP, Brazil, Argentina and US, account for more people of Italian descent than the 60ish million actually in Italy. With France, Venezuela, Uruguay, Canada, and maybe Australia also having more than 1M each.

Other important people living outside of Italy, but of Italian descent include Mario Cuomo, Nancy Pelosi, Antonin Scalia, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Frank Capra, Al Pacino, Madonna, Lee Iacoca, Hanna and Barbera (the cartoonists), Fred De Luce (the founder of Subway), Leonard Riggio (the owner of Barnes& Nobles), Louis Rossetto (the founder of Wired magazine), Jay Leno, Racheal Ray, Bon Jovi, The Jacuzzi brothers, Charles Ponzi, (yes that's right, "Greater Italy" is responsable for perfecting the modern pyramid-scam, Jacuzzi tubs, and Space Ghost) Lawrence Ferlinghetti, (I didn’t recognize any of the South Americans, but there are a lot listed as notable by WP), so you could add many, many more things to the list, depending on whether you meant Italian national contributions or contributions by people of the Italian ethnicity. Bmorton3 20:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something for when you get back from vacation

		The Epic Barnstar
		Your work on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism has made an embarressment out of those who originally sought its deletion due to lack of vision. I like that. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a call for comments

I saw that you are away from WP - I'm sorry to hear that. I enjoyed your contributions. I'll leave my message anyway in hopes that you sneak back in for just a peek.

On the Talk:List of philosophers born in the twentieth century page at the bottom of the section on Rand and on the Template talk:Philosophy navigation page, near the very bottom, is a request for comments - I hope you will take the time to express your views. Steve 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on User Steve Wolfer

First, I'll apologize for an making a personal request here on your talk page.

Simoes along with Buridan have initiated a Request for Comment on me. The request asks that I be admonished to "refrain from editing philosophy-related lists".

I believe that I've tried to follow WP policy and tried to be civil in my attempts to add Rand to the various philosophy lists. I haven't modified the text of others or deleted their entries and tried to provide sources in my attempt to get Rand's name on the lists of philosophers. I am hoping that there will people who will deliver comments to this request page - other than the detractors I've acquired. I will have to go out to that page and defend myself like a kid sent to the principals office. How awful that feels! Best wishes, Steve 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Smoktun.jpg

Hello Bmorton3, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Smoktun.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Bmorton3/Philosophy of art. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jackson Pollock Galaxy.jpg

Hello Bmorton3, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Jackson Pollock Galaxy.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Bmorton3/Philosophy of art. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 12:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipotence paradox

I have nominated Omnipotence paradox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]