User talk:Deor: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:26, 10 July 2008

fuck off

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+fuck off
-'''Archives:'''
-[[User talk:Deor/Archive1]] (12/2006–12/2007)<br>
-[[User talk:Deor/Archive2]] (1/2008–6/2008)
-==Gods==
-Why did you undo the roman names of the gods I put in brackets beside their greek counterparts?
-([[User:Coffeewhite|Coffeewhite]] ([[User talk:Coffeewhite|talk]]) 21:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC))
-==Wrong user==
-I have not created article [[List of Roman Emperors born in Serbia]] but nationalistic SPA account [[user:KaiSuTeknonBrute]]. My only job has been moving article to another name, so you can delete article--[[User:Rjecina|Rjecina]] ([[User talk:Rjecina|talk]]) 03:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
-== BC AND AD ==
-The reason I changed this is because simply he was a Roman and Greek and Italy and Greece use the AD and BC system.
-Also why not just change the dates back why also delete all the names?
-Also you need to stop acting like you are one of wikipedia's staff because you are not.
-([[User:Coffeewhite|Coffeewhite]] ([[User talk:Coffeewhite|talk]]) 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
-==Is Deor out to lunch ?==
-Here Logicus posts a serious query about Deor's fitness to be meddling with Wikipedia articles that is posted on the Celestial Spheres Talk page, for a serious answer by Deor that he has not provided in spite or repeated challenges to do so.
-:::'''Police Constable Deor ? Logicus says No !'''
-:::Imperious User Deor has elected to set himself up as Police Constable Wikipedian who polices Wikipedia and reports breaches of what he imagines to be its rules and breaches of its rules to its administrators. Here we present Deor's latest arrogant imperious mistaken comments posted to Logicus's User Talk page for everybody to read
-:::"[edit] Celestial spheres redux
-:::I'm going to revert your additions and deletions once again. Repeatedly adding material that is not relevant to the article's topic and, in essence, constitutes an original synthesis of material in primary sources is disruptive and impermissible in Wikipedia. Any further disruption at this article will be brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as you have repeatedly attempted to insert your original research and personal interpretations of historical sources into multiple articles. This is an encyclopedia that relies on information gleaned from secondary sources, not a forum for posting what appears to individuals to be "logically" inferrable from the historical record. Deor (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
-:::Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Logicus" "
-:::But on the cardinal issue here of relevance, it should be self-evident to one and all that any material on the causes of the motions of the celestial spheres, such as the theory of Buridan, is of absolutely central relevance to any article on the celestial spheres and their motions. And yet Wiki User Deor repeatedly seeks to deny this, and under repeated challenge to provide any rational justification for this unjustifiable POV, repeatedly fails to do so.  Why is this ? Should User Deor be banned from meddling with Wikipedia articles because of his severe anti-educational tendency. [Watch this space !]  '''Logicus'''
-== Thanks ==
-Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- [[User:Gogo Dodo|Gogo Dodo]] ([[User talk:Gogo Dodo|talk]]) 05:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
-==Is Deor wrong about Ptolemy's alleged instrumentalism ?==
-In connection with Logicus's 27 June proposed deletion of the [[Celestial spheres]] article's
-following claim
-“Through the use of the epicycle, eccentric, and equant, this model of compound circular motions could account for all the irregularities of a planet's apparent movements in the sky.[7][8]
-as either false or meaningless and its replacement with a meaningful and historically truthful assessment of Ptolemy's achievement, on the 22nd of June in [[Celestial spheres Talk]],  you claimed it is a possibility "that Ptolemy, for one, didn't devote much thought to the problems and consequences associated with positing the physical existence of spheres, epicyles, etc. Deor (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)"
-Logicus then pointed out to you that it seems this is not a possibility on the evidence of Ptolemy's ''Planetary Hypotheses'', and also provided a quotation from the Introduction of Langermann's 1990 English language edition of Alhazen's ''Configuration of the World'' , which quotes Ptolemy's views in his Planetary Hypotheses on the two possible physical forms of the celestial bodies, as follows:
-"In Book II [of ''Planetary Hypotheses''] Ptolemy undertakes to establish the shapes of the bodies that carry out the heavenly motions....He states
-'For each of these motions, which are different in quantity or kind, there is a body that moves freely on poles and in space and which has a special place...'
-Ptolemy then postulates two possible paths of approach to the physical explanation of the workings of the cosmos.
-'The first of them is to assign a whole sphere to each motion, either hollow like the spheres that surround each other or the earth, or solid and not hollow like those which do not contain anything other than the thing [itself], namely those that set the stars in motion and are called epicyclic orbs. The other way is that we set aside for each one of the motions not a whole sphere but only a section (qitcah) of a sphere. This section lies on the two sides of the largest circle which is in that sphere, namely that from which the motion is longitude [is taken]. That which this section closes from the two sides is [equal to] the amount of latitude. Thus the shape (shakl) of this section, when taken from an epicyclic orb, is similar to a tambourine (duff). When taken from the hollow sphere, it is similar to a belt (nitaq), an armband (siwar) or a whorl (fulkah), as Plato said. Mathematical investigation shows that there is no difference between these two ways that we have described.'  [Nix 113:16-33  Goldstein 37:9-17]
-However, as per usual when confronted by Logicus with rational arguments against your errors and invalid reasoning against Logicus's contributions and your unjustifiable deletions of them, you have not responded by either retracting your claim or else defending it against Logicus's refutation of it.
-In the first instance Logicus would be grateful if you would be courteous and civil enough to either withdraw your claim or defend it here or else on the Talk page.
-In the second instance, Logicus would like to know your possible justification for deleting Logicus's posting of Langermann's book in the article's Bibliography, which was
-'Langermann, Y. Tzvi ''Ibn al Haytham's On the Configuration of the World'' New York: Garland Publishing, 1990'
-Note this book is also cited by McCluskey in the article, and should therefore surely be listed in the Bibliography at least for that reason, even if you do not like Logicus quoting it to challenge McCluskey's interpretation of Ptolemy as being inconsistent on the form of the celestial bodies.
-The practical purpose of this reasonable request is to clear the way for the article's improvement at least in respect of the assessment of Ptolemy's achievement, and towards that end to stem what Logicus regards as the destructive and counter-educational editing of such as yourself and McCluskey.
---[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
-==User Deor uncivilly transgresses Wikipedia courtesy requirements==
-Logicus would be grateful for a rational response from Deor on the following issue raised in Celestial spheres Talk on 7 July.
-User Deor has yet again restored the following untenable claim in the Celestial spheres article first deleted by Logicus on 27 June after demonstrating it was either false or meaningless:
-"Through the use of the epicycle, eccentric, and equant, this model of compound circular motions could account for all the irregularities of a planet's apparent movements in the sky.[7][8]"
-without providing any justifying quotation for this claim from the justifying sources given, as courteously requested by Logicus here on 28 June in Talk as follows:
-"User Deor has restored this false or meaningless claim deleted by Logicus without any justification. Even if somebody does make this bizarre claim, it does not mean it should therefore be repeated in Wikipedia. But in the first instance I propose Deor should provide the actual quotation from the source supplied that actually makes this bizarre claim, to see whether it does justify it.. One often finds with Wikipedia history of science sources for claims made that they do not justify the claim made because the author has misinterpreted what they actually said. I shall delete the claim again until it is reliably justified, but which of course it cannot be essentially because it is blatantly false. --Logicus (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)"
-Thus Deor is apparently in breach of the courtesy requirement stipulated in the second and third paragraphs of the following Wikipedia rules for Verifiability in reliable sources
-" # ^ When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable when they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered "best practice" under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources.
-^ When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.
-The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] "
-Logicus would be grateful for Deor's compliance with these courtesy requirements, especially noting that Logicus has repeatedly shown Deor's friend McCluskey's cited sources do not justify the claims he makes, whereby McCluskey stands exposed as committing Original Research and breaching NPOV in such cases. In one recent major blunder in this respect, in the Scientific Revolution article's Talk page on 18 April McCluskey tried his usual stunt of insinuating or accusing Logicus's corrections of his untenable POV handiwork breach NPOV because Logicus had pointed out Aristotle did not maintain all motion requires an external force but only violent motion, contrary to McCluskey's claim that Aristotle did according to Stillman Drake. Thereupon Logicus had to quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Aristotle at McCluskey before he would accept Logicus was right and he and Drake as reported were wrong. The triumvirate of Deor, McCluskey and Ragesoss would do well to study this episode as a powerful illustration of how it is they, not Logicus, who impose POVs and Original Research in Wikipedia history of science articles, whilst making insulting unjustified accusations of such against Logicus who challenges them.
-Will the outcome be similar in this case ? Will Deor manage to find some textual quotation that shows some historians of science do indeed hold this manifestly mistaken view ?
---[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 17:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
-==Deor on God==
-Whether you imagine yourself to be God herself, or else at the very least an expert and authoritative theologian, your claim in [[Celestial spheres]] Talk of 24 February that God is nowhere in your negative comment on Logicus's query of that same date, namely that
-“As you probably know, God isn't in any "place"; note "beyond physical existence" in the sentences you've quoted from the article.”
-at least conflicts with the article's current claim that in the middle ages
-"Christian and Muslim philosophers modified Ptolemy's system to include an unmoved outermost region, which was the dwelling place of God and all the elect."
-Clearly if God is nowhere, then the restricted outermost region can hardly be his dwelling place.
-Thus either the article is currently mistaken or you are.
-Which is it?
-Moreover your C.S. Lewis quotation does not establish God was nowhere in medieval cosmology, as you seem tro imagine it does.
-But really, I don't reckon you really know where God is any more than silly old Logicus does, even though Logicus is one of God's favourite philosophers (-:
---[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
-==Deor on Love==
-On 24 February last you challenged Logicus's claim that Aristotle's cosmology was the scientific origin of the well-known saying 'Love makes the world go round.' as follows:
-“…the extremely unlikely "[Aristotle’s cosmology] is the scientific historical origin of the popular saying 'Love makes the world go round'" is unacceptable without some source other than your say-so.
-But far from regarding Logicus’s claim as extremely unlikely, the anti Duhemian American historian of medieval science Edward Grant, who your mentor McCluskey regards as one of his mentors on the history of medieval science and advocates as a good starting point on the physics of the celestial spheres, says
-"Although it is by no means certain that Aristotle is the ultimate source of these poetic sentiments [that 'Love makes the world go round'], he is surely a - if not the - leading candidate." [p67 The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages ]
-Surely yet again Deor this reveals your apparent ignorance of the subject matter on which you seek to pontificate and educate Logicus on ? And does it not suggest to you that maybe the cause of your unjustified accusations that Logicus indulges in OR is rather maybe only a reflection of your own ignorance of the subject matter and its literature rather than reflecting any truth ?
-Your observations here are invited on whether your holiness thinks I may restore something like what you deleted in one of your many educationally destructive edits, rather than more modestly just requesting a citation.
---[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
-== Astrology ==
-I see the subject interests you. I don't know if this is from an observers POV or as a practitioner, but in 1976 when I held a vigil at the Liberty Memorial Mall in Kansas City after the Republican National Convention (Ref: Kathleen Patterson, 'Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil', The Kansas City Times, 13 September, 1976, pg 3A and Robert W. Butler, 'Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction', The Kansas City Times, 2 November, 1976) I enjoyed frequent access to drop into the studio of a local night radio talk show. One time an astrologist by the name of Gars Austin was on the line from Texas giving brief chart readings based only on the birth date of callers. Coming up to a news break and not knowing me, from the studio I asked if he could do a more in depth reading based on my birth at 8am Sunday morning in Montreal May 21, 1944. The talk show host, the listeners and I were amazed with what he came back with. I asked if the charts showed anything significant around February 1, 1975 the date of my Spiritual resurrection. He didn't know anything about that. We were all surprised when he said, "According to my chart, on that date you had a very powerful Spiritual experience." From that time I had to give more credence to what is written in the stars. Peace [[User:DoDaCanaDa|DoDaCanaDa]] ([[User talk:DoDaCanaDa|talk]]) 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)