User talk:Peter Damian (original account)

This user is permanently blocked from Wikipedia!

On the circumstances surrounding my block

Some comments on my block. The circumstances which led up to my block were some hot-headed remarks by me, for which I subsequently apologised, and the apology accepted. I also made two offsite posts, one to an animal rights message board, both of which were removed the next morning. Neither of these contained a personal attack, but rather concerned the article Zoophilia, the ethics of which I am still deeply concerned about. (For example, the article in its present state seems to assume that sexual activity with animals cannot be intrinsically harmful to animals, for which there is no clear evidence, and it hardly mentions the ethics of human-animal sex, on which there is philosophical literature that could have been cited).

I can only apologise again for the remarks I made, and can only say that we all lose the thread from time to time. I'm not an animal rights activist, but I feel passionately about cruelty to anything, and this did cause me to lose the plot somewhat.

What actually caused the block was a passing remark on Giano's talk page, which was interpreted as a legal threat. This is absurd. For one thing, it wasn't a threat. A threat has to be made to someone whose action you are trying to influence. I was having a friendly conversation with Giano, and mentioned I was leaving Wikipedia, and mentioned possibly 'contacting the relevant organisations', by which I did not mean legal organisations.

I was offered the 'chance' to talk to Wales about this, and was told he would reply. I emailed twice, he never replied. The situation is now in gridlock. It is obviously absurd that I, a long-standing editor, am not allowed to edit, when some quite disruptive people on the philosophy project have been blocked for less. See my contributions below.

Mathematics, logic and set theory

• Zermelo_set_theory Viewed 662 times in February 2008.
• Skolem's_paradox
• Hume's_principle Viewed 1012 times in February 2008.
• Definitions_of_Logic
• Logical_form Viewed 450 times in February 2008.

Philosophical Logic

• Concept_and_object
• Unity_of_the_proposition
• Proper_name
• Existence (since rather spoilt)
• Russell's_paradox (since rather spoilt)
• Connotation_and_denotation (now considerably spoilt)
• Sense_and_reference
• Empty_name
• Philosophical_logic
• Plural_quantification
• Ontological_commitment
• Definition
• Singular_term

I suppose I should mention Philosophy as I did put some time into it, but it really has got f--ked up now. The current breed of admins are good at picking up minor schoolboy vandalism but are incapable of spotting anything that requires expert knowledge. That is the problem with Wikipedia isn't it. edward 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Medieval philosophy and logic

• Square_of_opposition
• Medieval_philosophy Medieval philosophy (incomplete, I am not allowed to finish this)
• Term_logic (since much tampered with)
• Continuity_thesis
• Sum_of_Logic

Classical Philosophy

• Metaphysics_(Aristotle)
• Posterior_Analytics
• Categories_(Aristotle)

Biographies

• Peter_Auriol
• William_of_Sherwood
• Ernst_Schröder
• Peter_Geach
• Crispin_Wright
• Anthony_Kenny
• Max_Black (sadly the picture that Black's son sent me has been deleted, not sure why)
• Simon_of_Faversham
• Jonathan_Lowe
• Arthur_Prior

Gospel music

• Mitchell's_Christian_Singers

GUEST BOOK

Well

Alas, Ed, I see you offended a whole sick crew of WP Administrative eunuchs. Sorry to see all that. Hope you will resume (someday) your splendid contributions to the medieval phil pages. P.s. as if things weren't bad enough, Lucas has quietly reoccupied his old user page. Sad to say, he's pretty small fry by comparison with the overweening coterie you have crossed. 271828182 (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Commiserations

You have my commiserations. Alice^✉ 09:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alice xxx

I missed all that

Sorry to read that story. Wikipedia philosophy has been occupying a very small part of my time over the last few months, mainly because - as you're well aware - the very structure of Wikipedia editing makes progress pretty hopeless. In response to your comment on the Philosophy Talk Page - yes, the article deteriorates very slowly. All I try to do is put the sections for which I am mainly responsible back into order after someone has messed them up. My ambitions aren't any higher than that. My main contribution to Wiki as an editor these days is filling in uncontroversial gaps.

All the best. KD Tries Again (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)KD

Thanks for the message - all the best! (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly...

...I don't know why you bother. Your own site is great, so why not just work at that? – Brunellus (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message. Speaking of which, here is some new material from the site: Simon of Faversham on why Caesar is dead, and Radulphus Brito on why being a dead man does not imply being a man. I still miss Wikipedia though. I see all the mistakes and wish I could correct them. edward trunk 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A message of ...

A message of commiseration, your input has been much valued. Now, as to Existence, I am sorry that the article is a little spoiled. There has been little editing this year. However, the article has some value, I hope. (I have not been active there much lately, I tried earlier to do what I could, you will remember.) All these misunderstandings are most regrettable, in that, I feel your apologies could have, and should have, resulted in allowing your return to editing. I wish you well. --Newbyguesses - Talk 03:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! edward trunk 08:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)