• Archive to 29 May 08
• Archive to 21 July 08
• Archive to 30 Nov 08
• Archive to 03 Mar 09
• Archive to 18 Oct 09
• User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 16
• User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 23 latest

• notes and working

Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[1] Best wishes Peter Damian (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant - sorry I don't monitor that page anymore otherwise I would have chimed in. It will be good to have you back on Philosophy articles ! Free Will in particular needs attention at the moment ----Snowded ^TALK 04:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's Brews again. Not sure if I have the stamina for that. I will take a look. Peter Damian (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I have the Stamina but the odd helping hand would be appreciated. I may even have missed the odd improvement in what he contributes! ----Snowded ^TALK 19:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snowded I was wondering if you would like to help with the Robert Kane (philosopher) article. Since you have at least an interest in metaphysical libertarianism. Also most of the arguments showing that science can not be used to dispense with indeterminism, stochastics, free will are in Nassim Taleb's very famous book The Black Swan and also Robert Kane's book The Significance of Free Will and almost anything by Ilya Prigogine. As such Prigogine caused a lot of controversy with his theory of irreversibility as if anything, it shows that if there is indeterminism, stochastics (i.e. Freedom of will) any form of determinism can not be used to refute it as there is no way to scientifically prove determinism. LoveMonkey 14:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a side note. It is no "illusion" that people operate by faith. It is a matter of science. In this I mean that human beings operate from the perspective of incomplete information (epistemic opacity). I would like to create an article on that subject and the work that Robert Kane has done on that. LoveMonkey 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and get time to have a look at it over the weekend - have been travelling and managing Brews is exhausting. I like the idea of that article and there is other material that could be used ----Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here.Peter Damian (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded:

You might be interested to participate in this Request for Comment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I was reading your page about the Labour Party and in particular the section about Northern Ireland.

Can I suggest two changes.

1. The article suggests the party changed membership rules after a review. It's only if you read the citation that you get the context of the review. I believe that if you include some of the citation detail, it provides a fuller explanation to the reader. The change only happened after the threat of legal action, backed by the GMB Union and the expectation the party would lose any case.

2. Recent comments by Labour leaders imply whole hearted support for the Union, but as you point out they have an affiliation with the SDLP, a Nationist party. This is in marked contrast to their views on the SNP. I appreciate this might be considered more of an opinion.

Thanks Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.175.186 (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I was reading your page about the Labour Party and in particular the section about Northern Ireland.

Can I suggest two changes.

1. The article suggests the party changed membership rules after a review. It's only if you read the citation that you get the context of the review. I believe that if you include some of the citation detail, it provides a fuller explanation to the reader. The change only happened after the threat of legal action, backed by the GMB Union and the expectation the party would lose any case.

2. Recent comments by Labour leaders imply whole hearted support for the Union, but as you point out they have an affiliation with the SDLP, a Nationist party. This is in marked contrast to their views on the SNP. I appreciate this might be considered more of an opinion.

Thanks

Paul

Countydown (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The place for that is on the talk page of the article itself. Happy to look at it if you make a proposal there ----Snowded ^TALK 10:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already started a conversation with the user who denies the deletion for the sentence. I hope that we can work something out, no need for a block threat. (N0n3up (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You use the talk page of the article and you stop edit warring. Otherwise it will be reported for a block. From what I saw you didn't start a discussion either you just tole the other editor he was wrong. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained why that part should be deleted, he on the other hand just reverted without giving a single reason to do so. (N0n3up (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Talk page of the article, make your case, do not edit war ----Snowded ^TALK 18:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The United States was in a stage of Industrial growth at the time, but that had nothing to do with the erosion of Britain's power. I was making reference to the US article of Wikipedia to pint out the widely accepted fact that the US was involved in Britain's fall after WWII, I wasn't using it as a source. And the sources I provided does prove that Germany was the main reason for Britain's power erosion and then WWI and WWII followed. (N0n3up (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subject–object problem (you have edited this article before). Peter Damian (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had as much as I could bear on Talk:Free will Peter Damian (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know how you feel, time to try and get action I think ----Snowded ^TALK 22:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The action needed is to address sources instead of behavior. Brews ohare (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you in a minority of one in thinking that Brews. How many more editors have to chime in before you finally admit you might be wrong? Or is ANI and yet another ban the only route? --Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP policy supports the purpose of the encyclopedia, which is to present what reputable sources have to say on various topics. Naturally such presentation involves some discussion of this content and how it should best be presented. Neither of these activities has recently been your focus. Brews ohare (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as you have been repeatedly told by many editors both on Philosophy pages and on Policy pages it does not support your personal synthesis of those sources. If you want to write essays on Philosophy please enrol in your local community college. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, synthesis is contrary to WP:SYN. However, you don't bother to back up your assertions that a violation has occurred. You yourself simply say that it is a waste of time to demonstrate that a source has been misreprented because only third-party sources matter, and no source I have cited is suitable. That way you can avoid any conversation at all. I don't think this is how to handle such matters. Your response to this protest is to claim misbavior on my part and threaten ANI. You will not even deign to formulate your own sourced opinion, preferring simply to revert all proposals with unsupported claims of synthesis. Perhaps, even though this is your position, you can understand that you are basically making yourself judge and jury over content? Can existing content survive this same idiosyncratic scrutiny? Brews ohare (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]