User talk:Pfaff9

Welcome

Identity (philosophy)

I completely agree with your assessment of the Identity (philosophy) page, and actually it was your comment about it that prompted me to go there, add the Hegel sentence, and add the page to my Watchlist. Clearly the page needs work with regard to the things you suggested. This topic is not really in my areas of special knowledge either, although I have some philosophy background, AND I'm hugely overloaded with work in my day job. But I do have a dictionary and encyclopedia of philosophy here that I could use for some guidance, and I have added the page to my Watchlist, so I will try to do some work on it when I have a chance, but I also won't mind if you remind me at some point. Thanks for paying attention to this. It's always embarrassing to come across these articles that don't look like encyclopedia articles. Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

No problem reverting the vandalism on Science studies, it can be very frustrating that there are those who seek solely to disrupt or damage. There are plenty of people who do RCPatrol so hopefully most things get picked up and put right fairly quickly. If you spot anything which hasn't been dealt with then it's useful to know WP:REVERT, just be careful what you label vandalism and what is either poor edits or difference point of view etc. If you need any help then please ask on my talk page. --pgk^(talk) 18:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Property

Hello, thanks for dropping me a line; I don't log in to (as opposed to read anonymously) Wikipedia much anymore, after one run-in too many with the linguistic equivalent of Holocaust deniers (the "Hungarian is Turkic" crowd), whom wikipedia's rules are not enforced strongly enough to constrain.

I'll take a look at your proposal re IP, and lend a hand. Mk270 23:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right I've had a look; the IP page, or at least the first two or three pages worth of that page, has improved a bit since I gave up on it. (As has the Hungarian language page, pleasingly). Your proposed replacement introduction is a step in the right direction, though I'd avoid using the word "entitlement" so early (and I write as someone who's argued about the proper acceptation of that word with the guys who actually draft the UK's IP laws).

My fear is that the page can't be fixed, and that it will always be kept in a substandard state by the gradual ministrations of people who refuse to separate IP law as is from IP law as they want it to be.

I think some consensus needs to be established first on how much discussion there should be of the term "intellectual property" as distinct from that which is covered by the term, which is what the article ought to be about. When I was involved with the article, there was a large section on criticism of the USE of the TERM, which is just so far from the point it's not funny. Do see if you can drag Lsolum back into the fray on this, as he's an actual IP law professor. Mk270 00:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia%3ASchool_and_university_projects

Hey Bryan, I planned to leave you a message just now anyway :) As I am interested in Wikipedia as a teaching tool (and I plan to use it in the course I'll be TAing for at Pitt) I make it a habit to track other similar projects. I also believe that we - the TAs and lectures - should help each another when we have time, so this is why I commented on this article (and left your student note about unlicensed image - he wrote he created it, but he still needs to add an appopriate tag). Regarding the article: yes, I feel it is too technical. That doesn't mean it should be dumbed down, rather I feel that some layman explanation should be added - after reading the lead I still don't know what the Diffie-Hellman problem is about.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small update: your studends did a pretty good job for their first entries :) One too technical note, two unlicensed images, one uncategorised article, some wikifying - overall, this is much better what one can expect :) I am especially happy to find the reference section in all three articles. Too many people forget about references :( So I hope more of your students drop by Wiki :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will be nicely suprised with Wikiversity. It's the newest offspring of our Wiki, and just what we are looking for, I think :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you may want to fix or ask your students to do: link their newly created articles from other articles. Wikipedia:What links here from most of their new articles gives often 0-very few results, which is not good. As I am no expert in those fields, I'll it up to you and them to decide which articles should link to their work. One more thing: tell them not to be shy with hyperlinking! I am reviewing the rest of the today's addition, all things considered, one of the best W:SaUP I have seen so far :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left this out of the assignment -- mea culpa -- but I've asked them to find relevant articles and link back to their articles; I'm doing some of this too.Bryan 14:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property project?

Critical reviews of Wikipedia's IP coverage ... that must be definitely quite interesting. I like the idea of Wikipedia articles becoming subject of critical studies. Which were the most common critics?

I accept your project proposal. Mmmbeer, PullUpYourSocks, Nowa, Jheald, Pde might also be interested in participating to the project. We need a project page, then? --Edcolins 20:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science

Please consider joining the proposed History of Science Wikiproject--ragesoss 01:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interdisciplinarity as transdisciplinarity

on the interdisciplinary page, you just made transdisciplinarity into interdisciplinary by saying it is borrowing x from y. borrowing is interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity is when the topic x (such as ethnography) is a program or project that cannot be completed in one discipline (anthropology) and requires the insights of other disciplines in order to be fully understood. it is a subtle difference, between the borrowing or using of a method across disciplines which is interdisciplinarity and the fact that the method cannot be understood other than from across disciplines, which is transdisciplinarity.--Buridan 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP block

Another user had a similar problem, so I unblocked High Horse early this morning (a little after midnight EST). Are you still having problems? Sorry for the trouble. Thunderbrand 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Pfaff9! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyrael / 16:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]