User talk:Speck22

Image copyright problem with Image:Pawtucket_Riverfront-3-09-23.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pawtucket_Riverfront-3-09-23.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:PRFP-current-plan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PRFP-current-plan.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Props for The Bucket Blog

... and you, sir, are one impressive blogger. I never would have gotten the Radler connection onto the RISN Operations page if not for your digging it out of the Chicago Reader. So thanks for the tip. And please, if you've got the time and inclination, help improve the "Fishwrap" and RISN pages when more info comes your way. I'm a Masshole (well, I live here, at least) and don't pay too much regular attention to Rhody. I put those pages together but don't really keep them up. _``` _W i k i _W i s t a h _W a s s a p _``` 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done at Essentialism

Good catch at Talk:Essentialism, noticing the strong similarity of the Philosophy section of Essentialism to a published source. This is a likely copyright violation and I've tagged it for investigation by the copyright team. May I ask, how did you happen to catch that? Btw, it would very helpful going forward, if whenever you notice something like this, you add the template {{copypaste}} to the article. Once again: well done! Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot - This actually connects with the previous entry by NightHeron regarding essentialism in politics. In leftist politics, there is an effort to reclaim the term "libertarian" from the right based on its origins in proletarian revolutionary circles in 1840s France. Some people have referred to modern libertarians as "essentialists", and I made the mistake of trying to find out what that meant. That specific sentence that Diannaa cut provided the definition that fit this usage. But the reference was unlinked, so I hunted it down. Having already read this article quite carefully, I immediately saw the similarity. Inasmuch as you all seem to care about this, I have the following thoughts:

1. I am unclear on why that specific sentence was cut. Is this idea not, in fact, present in contemporary essentialist metaphysics? Was it simply unsourced? The entire In Ethics section is unsourced, and the second para there echoes the bit cut here. The idea that morality is merely a social construction and, therefore, false is consonant with usage of "essentialist" I encounter in politics. The claim that "the power to exist" is the sole property of all things invalidates everything else. "Power to exist" is not far from "will to power". Long story short: Nietzsche is reemerging as the basis for political theory.

2. I get NightHeron's point that there is, at best, a tenuous connection between actual essentialism as a philosophical concept and its current use in politics. But this entire discussion is based on the political use of "essentialism/essentialist". Believe me, I would not be spending time on this if I weren't looking for legit, supportable arguments to combat what I consider faux-scientific arguments in a whole range of social issues: sexual preference, gender identity, race, ethnicity, etc. I'm clearly not a philosophy expert, but I am a grizzled political hack. I know propaganda when I see it. There is 100% a connection between current politics and a flattened, grade-school understanding of essentialism.

This is not going away. In writing this and looking at the history, I found these specific paras in metaphysics and ethics were subject to edits in September this year. I did not see an entry for the creation of the ethics section, and I suspect the red-link editor from September pointedly NOT mentioned by name.

I'm super-sorry to be the proximate cause here. You folks clearly want to have a solid, shenanigans-free resource, but you should expect this particular page to be targeted repeatedly.

Speck22 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]