User talk:Bobbyperou
Bobby, can you please discuss your proposed changes before just launching in? There has been a lot of hard work done on this article lately, and a lot of discussion as to the way to proceed. Your input is appreciated, but not at the expense of other editor's work. It is discouraging for other editors to see their work just disappear without being consulted. Thank you MarkAnthonyBoyle 04:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Bobby, I'm sorry I completely removed your rewrite of the ontology section. Although I agree that the section could use improvement, I don't think you achieved improvement successfully. You also completely wiped out the work of others. You either need to use the existing work and improve or you need to so perfectly and clearly define Zizek's ontology that you sublate the existing work into a better summary.
Where you did not achieve success: You did not directly address ontology, an important category in philosophy that the unititiated to Zizek will appreciate a direct mention of. You did not address the most current work by Zizek. His most current work is probably the only thing that is relevant. Althusser does not even make it into the index of Parallax. You seem to be back with the Sublime Object.
I don't see how you can credibly completely rewrite this section unless you address some of these concerns and provide citations. Best wishes. DocFaustRoll 16:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Bobby, I just reverted it again. Your addition could be placed under a section called Ideology perhaps but not Ontology. Or perhaps you could add a section called guiding principles. I recommend you read something more current by Zizek than Sublime Object and comment on that. Please let's not start an edit war. When I reverted your work, you should have left it as it was and went to discussion with me. Let us try to be cordial with each other. If you add to this section you must directly address ontology, with clear satements from his contemporary work and not "guiding principles" from early work. If it reads like a brochure then that is much the fault of Zizek, because this is a fair if not perfectly well written description of his ontology. DocFaustRoll 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You really tore the article apart...but did not seem to improve it. Was there a problem?--Knulclunk 22:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article was really a mess with a complete lack of references to Lacanian sources. The text now represents an accurate, and comprehensible, explanation of what the concept means. Do you have any suggestion? Bobbyperou
I appologize. I seem to have caught you mid-edit. I do encourage you to write an introductory paragraph that is easier for the lay person, not familiar with semiotics. You can see my poor attempt on the Talk page. I'm sure you can do better. Thaks!--Knulclunk 23:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Appologies welcome! Bobbyperou
- I added a {{context}} tag. Please help introduce this term to those of us who are unfamiliar with semiotics. --Knulclunk 04:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the tag on context. I hope that the article's new editing will be in accord with Wiki rules (I'm new and not very familiar) and fill the expectations of those unfamiliar with semiotics. All in all I think that semiotics is not so much the problem rather than Freud's and Lacan's work. Much could be said of the Names-of-the-Father but it will length the article I think unnecessarily. Bobbyperou
Welcome to WikiProject France
[edit]
STTW (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Four discourses
[edit]Hello Bobbyperou, I would like to thank you for your efforts in the article Four discourses. I have learned many things from both Lacan and Zizek, whom you apparently enjoy as well, but I had not read his 'Lecture XVII'. Your contributions have taught me something again (this time about the master-slave relation (and it's spin-offs)), that will benefit me and have inspired me to write a short article on the master slave relation as Lacan sees it, in contrast (or simularity) to what Nietzsche and Schopenhauer think of it. --Faust (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
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) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)