User talk:Der Zeitgeist

Thanks for your friendly note, I'll try to reply over the weekend. Jjshapiro (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Existentialism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on existentialism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the title "Existentialism", as our IP User friend didn't bother. You are not, of course, the instigator of the edit war. On the talk page today, the editor without an account has said quite explicitly that he/she finds it preferable to edit without seeking consensus and does not feel obliged to provide sources. That puts his/her approach to editing comfortably outside the bounds of what's permissible here. If he/she makes a mess of the introduction again, I'll seek some Admin-type assistance. The intro does need work, but I haven't yet had time to do the heavy-lifting of actually looking at sources. The section on existentialism in the Philosophy article has long needed an introductory sentence too, so we can kill two birds, etc.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Thanks for the message. I am largely responsible for the Phenomenology section of the Philosophy article, and very aware of its shortcomings. Explaining just Husserl in about a hundred words is...not easy. Anyway, first things first. I dug out some remarks explaining existentialism from the Kaufmann Existentialism: Dostoevsky to Sartre book today. I know I have the MacQuarrie and Barrett books at home - not sure about Solomon. Those are four basic English language texts on the subject. I think I'll be able to put together a simple, cite-based introduction from them. The existing introduction is not so much wrong (unlike the bizarre Heidegger version) as in need of more precision. I'll try to put a suggestion on the Talk Page over the weekend.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

See my new proposal. I think it's important to get an actual, fully sourced text which we can defend, and if the IP address strives to block the consensus, we can conclude we have a problem editor on our hands and seek assistance. I have already added it to the Existentialism section of the Philosophy page, and if necessary I will request some good philosophy editors to comment on our problem. I hope you can support it, although I welcome suggestions for improvement, of course. I spent today getting all the sources together, page cites and everything, and I'll add that tonight or tomorrow.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I've now contacted an Admin who has been involved in past Philosophy problems for help/advice. We really need a couple more editors involved, so it's clear there's a consensus against the IP addresses antics, not just you and me.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Got an Outside Opinion as above, but the Admin isn't much involved in Wiki these days. Since the issue is spreading to other articles, I have flagged it at the Admin Noticeboard[here].KD Tries Again (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Latest edits on Existentialism are the type which make me wonder whether Wikipedia is worth the effort. We seem to have more than one editor now posting their own, unsupported views of what Existentialism is. One can't do much serious editing while the vandals are out of control.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Hey, I enjoyed reading your edit today, but try to stay cool. Our anonymous colleague is coming under some serious Administrator scrutiny now, and I am doing by best to resist fighting with him.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC) KD Tries Again

Phenomenology

Thanks for the message. I am pretty sure the IP's first language isn't English, and I have tried politely to point out that his edit isn't good English on his Talk Page. If you have time, I hope you'll also encourage him/her to seek consensus for edits. If this continues, we made need to go to RfC, and that requires more than one editor to have addressed the issue on his/her talk page.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on phenomenology (philosophy). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I took the opportunity to remove inaccuracy from the Phenomenology lead and tidy it up. As you can see, a decision was taken some time back by other editors that this page is about the philosophical movement rather than phenomenology as such - I don't have a strong view whether that decision is right or not, but I inserted a description of the movement to comport with it. I welcome comments.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Talk:Existentialism#LEAD: What some sources say

I appologize, if I offended you in any way. Could you take a look at my last proposal there, please? I am not sure about the sentences: "The [existential interpretation] emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of individual experience. Such solitude makes the right condition for freedom of choice, but it also brings anguish of the inseparable responsibility to the individual, who recognizes the futility of existence that must go on without hope or help, and tends to deny his own responsibility and the truth of his freedom.". Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we try ignoring the troll. Six months of discussion has achieved nothing, and hindered constructive editing. Now that we have a lengthy record of refusals to open and account and warnings by Admins, I think we are beyond assuming "good faith".KD Tries Again (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)