User talk:Andrew Lancaster

414:

others. To it, however, greater activity was ascribed, and it acted according to ends, not merely according to mechanical impact, thus giving movement, unity, and system to what had previously been a disordered jumble of inert elements. Plato generalized the nous of Anaxagoras, proclaiming the necessity of a rational (teleological) explanation of all natural processes, and making nous also a thoroughly immaterial principle. As the principle which lays down ends, nous is also the Supreme Good, the source of all other ends and aims; as such it is the supreme principle of all the ideas. It thus gets an ethical and logical connotation as well as a cosmological.

167: 134: 436:), which includes thoughts that are dependent upon perception, memory -- experience as mediated through any bodily organ. The distinction (of Kant, but particularly as used by Coleridge) of REASON from UNDERSTANDING (q.v.) may, however, be compared with it, but the modern distinction of the subjective from the objective inevitably gives reason a much more psychological sense than nous possessed with the ancients. 459:

understood, if not fully appreciated, which is why he distinguished the possibility- disclosing activity of reason from the rule-governed acquisition and exercise of knowledge: ‘‘as pure self-activity ’’ reason ‘‘is elevated even above the understanding . . . with respect to ideas, reason shows itself to be such a pure spontaneity and that it far transcends anything which sensibility can provide it.’

993:. Krakkos leapt on my accidental reverts which happened because Krakkos was editing while I was editing. Krakkos later tried again soon after, but was rejected. And of course recently Krakkos pulled it off on Goths, by edit warring and then complaining, but without demonstrating any edit warring by me, only editing. 1407:

blatant rewriting of history. Krakkos ran away from the article because no one agreed with Krakkos. While the article was protected I worked a lot with others on the talk, and a special drafting page, and read a lot, posting constant updates notes and proposals. So I had a lot to add, and many people

1283:

There is something I must be missing about this whole GA review thing. If it was in good shape when the review started why did Krakkos (certainly not me) then proceed to totally change the article? In fact, the timing connects only to Krakkos giving up on Germanic peoples, and this goes together with

1218:

crude misrepresentation: deliberately leaving out the rest of the words which show why Krakkos is not the sort of editor who normally gets taken this seriously: "your hypocritical abuse of WP:RS never ceases to amaze. Despite all your supposed concern about the low academic status of Christensen, you

926:

As long Knowledge continues to reward his edit warring (as happened at Germanic peoples), he will grow even bolder, and additional productive editors will be driven away. Something needs to be done about this, but adding a protection template (as happened at Germanic peoples), will only give him more

804:

What caught Krakkos off-guard apparently was the strong consensus, and the straightforward policy-based, consensus-based, step-by-step approach I took. Needing to cooperate with others, Krakkos simply gave up on all participation and went looking for other articles to try to instill with the same POV

766:

diff2. Talk page of user Florian Blaschke, who has history working on articles with Krakkos. The cherry picked remark is a short expression of frustration about the debate in general: "I can't even tell what the hell you two are arguing about". After my reply, trying to explain my ideas, the response

458:

As distinct from the rule-governed activity of the understanding (whose rule-governed spontaneity is internally consistent with its concept), reason is a possibility-disclosing activity, proposing ends (‘‘ideas’’) that go beyond what is already given empirically or normatively. This much Kant already

342:

You said that I was trying to dismiss r1a in Southcentral Asia by calling it a pocket. If you look at the map that is clearly what it is. There is a corridor from Russia to Southcentral Asia that ends in a "pocket" or "bubble" or round shaped geographical area, of which the center, where r1a actually

1126:

Missing back story! In effect, Krakkos was arguing unclearly, using misleading diffs, that any editing by me on Goths should be seen as "edit warring". This succeeded. EdJohnston, refused requests by me to give any examples from the diffs which could show me edit warring and said when pushed that he

845:

is one of a large group of articles about Germanic peoples, in which I am one of the main content contributors. Krakkos certainly sees it that way because apart from being very busy on categorization, Krakkos's unique editing style often involves placing the exact same footnotes, sources, sentences,

784:

It was re-written based on those dozens of discussions which Krakkos expresses such anger about. Krakkos stopped posting to that talk page or editing it. Krakkos has repeated constantly, on other articles etc, that the article is now "mutilated" etc (Krakkos always like dramatic language) and I have

909:

Wikipage has indeed, mutilated this article, taken some of the information out of context, and created an editorial conundrum. Not sure what to do about all of this and so frustrated with the incessant bickering that I decided to just step away from this one. Other high-caliber editors like Florian

1319:

ad hominem personal attacks. EdJohnston's message to me was that the language or phrasing, on its own, made my message debatably a personal attack. So indeed it was a good idea to separate the language use, and the actual "accusations" concerning verifiable editing, talkpage and noticeboard facts.

442:

The distinction between knowledge, or understanding, and reason in Kant therefore mirrors the distinctions between is and ought, or nature and freedom. Nikolas Kompridis similarly connects the knowledge/reason distinction to the discovery in Kant of practical reason's connection to possibility vs.

413:

We owe the term, as a technical one, to Anaxagoras. He felt the need of a special principle to account for the order of the universe and so, besides the infinity of simple qualities, assumed a distinct principle, which, however, was still regarded as material, being only lighter and finer than the

865:

Actually this is the first time I think anyone has said I violated 3R? I thought the "edit warring" accusation was being made on some kind of subjective "everyone knows it when they see it" basis, and not revert counting. I certainly don't believe I was edit warring, or violating 3R. I also asked

706:

Just look at the "drastic" title of the section, which was misleading in itself. Below, furthermore, Krakkos complains that I was very active on the talk page. Krakkos was unconstructive, received no support from others, and started to look ridiculous, using strong words but then unable to define

366:

Nonetheless, it is intriguing to note that 82% of our 22 hunter-gatherer individuals carried clade U . ...... Europeans today have moderate frequencies of U5 types, ranging from about 1-5% along the Mediterranean coastline to 5-7% in most core European areas, and rising to 10-20% in northeastern

346:

R1a is not a Dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia. There are Tribal groups that have high percentages of R1a because they do not mix with other groups in the area. There are no countries in Southcentral Asia in which R1a reaches a much higher level than 20% except Kyrgyzstan. This article is

889:

diff1. User Obenritter. "Some of the behavior exhibited by Krakkos in creating offshoot articles is a result of your intransigence " Obenritter expressed frustration at the debates several times and has not been editing much. But Krakkos will certainly be aware of the comments on the RfC which

1231:

Do you realize how crude you sometimes appear? This is cherry picking from weak sources while you are STILL censoring the best known sources. The use of these reviews in this biased way is not something for a lasting and stable version. We are not writing an article about the beliefs of Peter

730:

diff1. TrynaMakeADollar (not a regular editor on the article, but interacted with Krakkos in category work in the past) whole post: "I agree with Krakkos on this one specific issue." Note this second post "@Andrew Lancaster, I appreciate some of the things that you've done for this

1139:

Deliberately out of chronological order, which makes one event look like several, and has nothing to do with here. Also, the description is wrong. EdJohnston said that the "language" or "phrases" could mean my post could be interpreted as a personal attack. No mention was made of

680:

Both of us were told we were "teetering on the edge". As mentioned above and below, 3R is something I technically did by accident on another article, at a different time, but in this very different context the teetering on the edge comment of Doug Weller is being twisted here.

734:

diff2. Srnec a regular editor of this article and many others I work on, and probably also Krakkos. There is a discussion about one sentence, where I was asking for advice and received it, and a change was made. I had no strong position. This is how normal editors work

653:

Hmmm. Just looked in detail and I see Krakkos is counting some earlier edits as reverts. I had not even noticed that because earlier in the day I was working on shortening the article as called for by Krakkos . Some of the material I removed, among many edits, was

850:

dispute which is an article I have a longer history editing that Krakkos. I was surprised to read I had not edited Goths, but don't see it as relevant to this long dispute which is about patterns of similar editing on many different articles, also in the future.

1167:

quicker also whenever you so much as post a single lie about a word in a footnote, and believe me I was avoiding doing that until now, and could have been MUCH harder. I see myself as a rare case of someone who has worked with you, but still wants to give you a

891: 1201:

blatant misrepresentation. I said that a specific bit of text in an article used "sycophantic minor book reviews" and achieved "deliberate tabloid quality partisanship" making Knowledge itself into a "sycophantic bully boy" for the favored hero of Krakkos,

419:

On the other hand, nous gets a psychological significance as the highest form of mental insight, the immediate and absolutely assured knowledge of rational things. (Knowledge and the object of knowledge are thus essentially one.) … In man, however, the

1414:

Terrified editors have contacted me about this privately, but are afraid to do it in the open, because they fear they will become the next target. I request the Arbitration Committee to review this unfortunate situation, in hope of having some sort of

451:

frames for itself with perfect spontaneity an order of its own according to ideas to which it adapts the empirical conditions and according to which it declares actions to be necessary even though they have not taken place and, maybe, never will take

871:

Because of his habit of completely rewriting quality articles, and apparent immunity from sanctions, many productive members of the community are afraid of him. His editing style has already successfully driven away a number of long-time productive

613:

note 1 long run questionable strategy in progress: Krakkos has been criticized by editors for creating articles for non-notable sources he wants to use, then posting lots of blue link and red link names in talk page posts to show his sources are

380:

Hi Andrew, I'm not a Kant expert, in spite of my limited knowledge of his thoughts on reason. And I don't really have time to get into an in-depth discussion of intellect vs. mind vs. nous vs. reason. However, as I understand it, for the Greeks,

807:

It seems to me the words gaslighting and stonewalling describe the complaints Krakkos gets from other editors though. See the Goths talk page for examples of stonewalling: constantly saying the same disputed things over and over.

1422:"People say..." This type of constant performance of over-dramatic dishonest aspersions is not really normal. But apparently it has worked in the past? The record of Krakkos should be looked at by more Wikipedians to check. 1368:

The previous failure of such complaints to deal with the problem, has however convinced me that only an Arbcom ruling can effectively deal with the situation. A member of Arbcom has privately encouraged me to contact this

1329:

He also states that "the recent "win" at the edit warring noticeboard is going to make Krakkos a worse editor", that " the "win" is not a real win.', and that he will "have to be far stricter and less trusting of

1044:

deliberate distortion. No diffs are given here (and see below for other diffs) but in effect, as can also be seen by other Krakkos posts, what Krakkos is referring to here is that I started trying to work on

337: 1154:

message at my talk page, accusing me of "shameless dishonesty", said that i "lie and screw others", and that he and his "community" would cause my "exit from Knowledge" and "the removal of all" my edits.

904:

This page and the associated Talk Page have become so convoluted that it's hard to tell which direction to go and yes, I find Krakkos culpable for much of this. His carte blanche approach to editing the

1093:

Apparently any editing at all can be called hounding (and/or edit warring). Germanic culture, just as one example, is an article that at that time was effectively a new split off from Germanic peoples!

866:

several times for someone to look at those diffs and confirm if they can really be called edit warring. It is very frustrating that Krakkos can post this ASPERSION, and not have the claims examined.

611:

Not a controversial edit, nor a revert. There had been a lot of talk page discussion about this controversial source, and also about the problem of Krakkos adding up to 14 sources per sentence.

757:

diff1. Post by user Ermenrich, agreeing with a post by user Austronesier, on Doug Weller's talk page. Both editors were writing in a neutral manner to an admin, concerning the disputes on the

1309:, doubling down on his attacks, trivializing them as "colorful rhetoric", says that he is "willing to defend" them, and concludes that i should "just stop trying to work against WP policy". 1080: 1284:

numerous spin-off actions by Krakkos jumping to related articles, or moving materials from Germanic peoples to other articles. Lallensack was disappointed in the situation generally.

347:

written in such a way that would imply that R1a is a dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia, when in reality, R1a only accounts for a small fraction of Southcentral Asian men.

839:

This story, as a story, actually does not sound very similar to what I supposedly did on Germanic peoples. This new case sounds more like a classical article ownership claim?

389:

form, and true knowledge for the Greeks was the knowledge that revealed the form that was represented in things. John Dewey wrote a great dictionary entry about nous in 1901:

125: 745:

Andrew Lancaster meanwhile flooded the talk with dozens of long sections, thereby creating confusion and discouraging other editors from participating in the discussion.

979: 644: 661: 1115: 329: 1373:"long ago" was on the same day as Krakkos wrote this text. Furthermore this is another case where one incident is being described as if it were several incidents. 910:

Blaschke, Austronesier, Joshua Jonathan, Ermenrich, Carlstak, or Johnbod may be able to untangle this, but I don't have the sufficient bandwidth right now and my

805:

vision. So the words used here match no events, not even debatably. You can't edit war, stonewall or gaslight someone who is not even active on the article.

1639: 1605: 1251:

Lallensack was never involved in article writing, but indeed made a complaint into the middle of a content discussion that I should not say that Krakkos "

649:

Unfortunately yes once I technically broke 3RR without realizing it; because Krakkos started editing at the same time; this is still being used against me

1571: 1533: 1391:. The second diff is yet another attempt to double or triple mention various incidents, and it refers not to a content editor, but the GA reviewer again. 1086: 588:. This refers to an informal proposal by the GA reviewer, within a good faith discussion. The sentence implies lots of things which just did not happen. 325: 858: 1292:

EdJohnston gives Andrew Lancaster another warning for his blockable personal attack, and instructs him to make a revised post without personal attacks.

660:, if we are talking history, Krakkos should also mention what happened a few days later when a new attempt to claim edit warring was quickly rejected: 1471: 1433: 1121: 1118: 552: 447:

The great innovation of Kant’s critical philosophy was to reconceive reason as spontaneously self-determining, or self-legislating, such that reason

408:. Reason, thought, considered not as subjective, nor as a mere psychic entity, but as having an objective, especially a teleological, significance. 1295:

Sort of. EdJohnston said it was debatably blockable, and suggested a reworded version. I can't prove it, but I actually already wanted to do that.

586:

Seriously misleading, and part of a gas-lighting strategy - i.e. aspersions that any editing by me was somehow known to be somehow like an edit war

1281:

By the accounts of Krakkos and Lallensack themselves, it was the successful fake edit war complaint of Krakkos which disrupted everything, not me.

539:, and I realized this is being cited to me for trying to defend myself from some, which no one seems to have questioned. So just for reference... 348: 1175:

the same thing, and it created a situation where you felt there was no point even trying to edit any more. It seems you can only work alone and

1668: 1634: 1348: 1600: 1566: 1347:

Even after EdJohnston's repeated warnings against personal attacks, he writes that i have "a systematic tendency to try to make false claims"

38: 1528: 1466: 1290: 1056: 1000:

should probably stay away from that page" and I was doing that anyway. I saw it as practical advice and it was similar to my own thinking.

1331: 1351: 273:

to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

73: 1310: 571:

At least 2 misrepresentations, 1 of which is quite serious and blatant. Which reverting? (or similar); which 24 hour limit? which 3RR?

482:

Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. and eds Paul Guyer and Allen Wood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p. 541.

780: 965: 353: 1408:

had helped contribute to that - including Krakkos, whose input when (rarely) it is constructive, I always try to take into account.

1356:

Correct. And nothing says "your can trust me to be honest" like forum shopping for admins to try to put other editors out of action

1106: 846:

into a whole group of articles at once. Also note that Krakkos also portrays the Goths dispute as a continuation of the previous

824: 313: 297: 761:

article. Both editors supported and advised in big rewrite which Krakkos objects to, as can be seen at various places such as

664:

Krakkos, in other words, has a systematic tendency to try to make false claims of 3RR or catch people out on technicalities.

79: 1255:" his OUP access privileges when he constantly claims that a dictionary article behind a paywall justifies everything, AND ( 1077: 316:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

1363: 1327: 1303: 1104: 897:

discussion: "you have been correct in many of your rebuttal edits and deletions to contributions made by Krakkos" ...and...

768: 748: 708: 220: 213: 208: 203: 196: 191: 186: 133: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 101: 97: 699: 511: 1219:

have no problem citing two very minor book reviews of him, despite there being so many positive big name reviews, which

1108: 1402: 1075: 1013: 778: 721: 981: 746: 719: 717: 673: 628:" normally considered a deceptive form of argumentation; e.g. When did you stop beating your wife? BTW Which behavior? 605:

1 blatant misrepresentation. The link to consensus shows no such thing; there was no consensus or support from others.

1380: 1366: 1134: 873: 317: 767:

starts was: "Obviously I agree ... But the differentiation and delineation of the topic is the whole problem here."

1341:

Twisting my words. Obviously I was explaining that I think the battleground behaviour of Krakkos is far from over.

1155: 1084: 687: 670: 1163:"Of course I'd be happy to work with you if you DON't do that, but I will, in any case, work. I will call in the 1011: 983: 894: 1232:

Heather. We should not take his side on every issue, or censor or caricature any people who disagree with him."

1010:

I subsequently refrained from further edit warring, while Andrew Lancaster completely rewrote the disputed page.

24: 893:

such as, "Agree with @Ermenrich: entirely here, while concomitantly disagree wholeheartedly with Krakkos", or

1388: 990: 68: 332: 1382: 1247: 1244: 1242: 1213: 1196: 597: 282: 270: 1320:

Krakkos should not deliberately try to re-confuse things or fabricate, if Krakkos has positive intentions.

1315:

My expressions of real concern, pointing at real events, and asking how to work in the future are clearly

1379:

The poisonous atmosphere has discouraged or driven away productive editors from editing the subject area,

253: 59: 814:

Andrew Lancaster is applying this lesson flawlessly at Goths. As soon as the GA-review on Goths started,

437: 1018:

I did a lot of work writing drafts and using talk pages etc to try to get as much consensus as possible

92: 821: 600: 594: 497: 302: 1144:

to me. EdJohnston mentioned to Krakkos that he might have a case if he tries to use that against me.

1206:, who Krakkos openly demands to be the only source used to decide what is in or not in the article. 463:(Nikolas Kompridis, "The Idea of a New Beginning: A romantic source of normativity and freedom" in 1289:

As a result of the continued personal attacks, i post a complaint at the talk page of EdJohnston.

1228: 1225: 1241:

tells him that he will not participate in a discussion characterized with such personal attacks,

324:

on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --

1334: 1072: 815: 738:

diff3. Another broken link! How does this keep happening, and why did no admin check any links?

277: 762: 428:), which is free and the source of all man's insight and virtue that links him to the divine ( 1133:

Andrew Lancaster was later specifically warned against casting further aspersions against me.

795: 564: 491: 309: 20: 777:

My concerns were ignored and the article was completely rewritten to its present poor state.

500:"Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians". 1387:

serious misrepresentations. Concerning Obenritter see my comments about similar aspersions

1238: 1141: 1037: 930: 834:, posting long walls of text containing the same arguments and attacks over and over again. 579: 536: 505: 818: 8: 1476:

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1306: 1275:

review of the article, which he earlier considered in "good shape" and wanted to improve.

1160:

blatant (indeed shameless) misrepresentation; here are two of the quotes in longer form:

791: 49: 790:

The lesson learned from the Germanic peoples dispute is clear and simple: Edit warring,

785:

asked several times for him to give constructive feedback at that article, to no avail.

827: 360:

Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe’s First Farmers

292: 64: 338:

Please explain to me why you think r1a is a domainant haplogroup in Southcentral Asia.

1664: 1630: 1596: 1562: 1524: 1462: 823:

He had never edited the article before becoming aware that i had nominated it for GA.

45: 1259:) that ONLY this source should be used! Lallensack claimed, I believe wrongly, that 490: 375: 847: 758: 640: 625: 1263:

says that "It is irrelevant whether or not an alleged abuse can be demonstrated."

1117:

User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston warned us against editing warring and personal attacks,

698:

I refrained from edit warring and tried to resolve the situation at the talk page,

1507: 1151: 1025: 692:

links to nowhere; presumably it shows 1 edit; I believe there was NO edit warring

530: 501: 236: 148: 1297:

BTW, this specific event is reported twice in the listing of Krakkos. See above.

343:

reaches more than 50% is an extremely small area compared to the European R1a.

1416: 686:

As soon as that protection expired, he escalated the edit warring even further.

1326:

He further states that he is just trying to "help Krakkos be a normal editor".

232: 144: 1362:

EdJohnston long ago considered Andrew Lancaster's personal attacks blockable,

1260: 1203: 1111: 1033: 287: 166: 1660: 1656: 1626: 1622: 1592: 1588: 1558: 1554: 1520: 1516: 1458: 1454: 1398: 1272: 1029: 997: 975: 1055:

He's threatening my "exit from Knowledge and the removal of all" my edits.

1049:. To be clear, what Krakkos wants is that I not be allowed to work on that 920:

I am surprised no admin remarked about the two png files that are posted.

830:. In the last few days, he has started more than a dozen new sections at 1024:

Rather than fixing that page further, Andrew Lancaster has now began to

944: 643:, Andrew Lancaster flagrantly violated 3RR, and got away with a warning. 238: 149: 1611: 1192: 831: 1581: 1577: 1071:

He's been hounding me at articles he has not edited before, such as

879: 877: 875: 385:

was the highest possible metaphysical ideal or form, because it was

234: 146: 1171:"I really wonder what you think happens next. On Germanic peoples 669:

After continuing the edit war, he simply received another warning,

1649: 1644: