User talk:Filinthe

Welcome!

Hello, Filinthe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Heidegger and Nazism does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Heidegger and Nazism

Hi Filinthe. Please do not edit without providing reasons for your changes. You made many edits to the article on Heidegger without providing justifications. I have looked at many of them: some are good, others are highly contestable and need at least to be discussed on the talk page for the article. In particular you have made a number of changes that are either original research or are unsourced. I am going to revert the article accordingly. Mfhiller (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

You are still editing the article on Heidegger and Nazism without providing reasons for your edits. Please do not do this. Also what seems like a defence of Heidegger falls under WP rules governing "minority" views, undue weight, and original research. Please keep editing the article on Heidegger and Nazism, but can you please: state reasons for the changes you are making, not give undue weight to the minority view that Heidegger "really wasn't so bad" (even though it is interesting material that should be included), and raise significant changes on the talk page? Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Filinthe, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heidegger and Nazism

The new lede on Heidegger and Nazism is improved. I haven't had much time the last week to pay much attention to this discussion but I am grateful for your contributions. Will respond more later. Mfhiller (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Edit summaries

Please provide edit summaries. Unless you provide edit summaries I am simply going to revert your edits on the basis that you are providing no justification for your changes. I have asked you to provide edit summaries previously. WP guidelines insist that you do this also. Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

At the bottom of the page you are editing there is a section titled "edit summary," please fill this in. You will see when you look at the edit history of any article that just about everyone provides justification for changes. Just ask for further help if you can't find the place to add your edit summary. It is really helpful for others to be able to see edit summaries. Mfhiller (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Thanks also for the time you are spending editing articles about Heidegger. You are bringing so-to-speak the controversy back into the controversy. It is a worthwhile discussion and the article in particular is better off with a balanced presentation of both sides (although we all have to agree in the end, given Ott's research, that Heidegger at the very least was way too complicit with the Nazis). I've never thought, however, that Heidegger's philosophy has much at all to do with Nazism, and, indeed, points against it. Cheers. Thanks again. Mfhiller (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Articles for deletion Mitläufer

Thought you might be interested to comment. I created the article Mitläufer. It is now under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Mitläufer". Mfhiller (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Actually just go to my talk page to find the appropriate links. Can't seem to get these to work. Mfhiller (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Thanks for your contributions. Let's see what happens with the Mitläufer article. Mfhiller (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Heh Filinthe, you don't have a user page

Heh Filinthe. You don't have a user page. Why don't you say something about yourself... like "I speak French, I speak German, I even speak English." Cheers from Canada. Mfhiller (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Brilliant. Thanks as always.Mfhiller (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Heidegger and Nazism

Thanks Filinthe for your recent comments on the Heidegger and Nazism talk page. As always they are thought-provoking. I'll respond at length a bit later. I want to say, however, that you are making invaluable contributions to the article and that I don't want to offend you with my edits. I obviously have a different perspective on the Heidegger case than you - but I am no sycophant to Heidegger's detractors. There are in my opinion some clearly unresolvable issues regarding Heidegger's support of National Socialism. Yes, it is deeply troubling, but one does not need to, so-to-speak, throwout the baby with the bathwater. The resolution I have come to myself is that Heidegger became deeply confused about the distinction between the ontological and the ontic already in' Being and Time and that this was the source of his Nazism (also the fact that he remained embedded in a particular form of conservative Catholicism). Don't ever think for a second, however, that I am dismissive of Heidegger. How on earth doesn't one become confused about the distinction between the ontological and the ontic? Look again at Kant's first sentence of the First Preface of the Critique of Pure Reason. It identifies the problem quite clearly: we are as thinking beings forced to ask the question of the meaning of the question of being but are almost incapable, because of the limits of reason, of providing an answer. How is that for a philosophical dilemma? Mfhiller (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Heh Filinthe :) I've been reading through the Heidegger and Nazism article to see what you've done. The Langwald reference is very interesting - I'm not sure what to make of it though. I'll see if there is anything in English (since I can't read German or French). I'll do some editing here soon after the Aurora shooting article has cooled down a bit. Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Filinthe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Filinthe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]