" 

 ==Protection:  So... what happened?== 

 Dang it...  We were doing good we had made so much progress.  I could already imagine all the accolades that were going to be heaped on me by the Wikipedia community for singlehandled brokering a peace deal...  only to see all my wonderful career as a diplomat going up in flames on Feb 3.  Guess I'm not ready to tackle the Israel-Palestine peace accord just yet...  Oh well, don't count your barnstars before they're hatched.   

 So.. let's do the postmortem.  Forgive me if you're explained some of this somewhere above  the amount of discussion this has generated is quite difficult to wade through.   
 - 
 ====The Discussed Issues==== 
 (not in same order as above posts) 
 # The Block (1995) Quote:   I disagree with Alienus I don't think the pre-print status makes it unquotable I know _technically_ that's a rule I read somewhere, but still.  If we decide we like the quote, with one email, we could verify it.  I don't overwhelmingly object to the quote (it is factual), but isn't it just Block quoting Dennett about what we're already quoted him?     
 # Materalism vs Physicalism.  I personally see nothing in Dennet's definition that makes me think he is using the technical ""matter-only"" version of materialism.  I don't know that I've ever personally bumped into anyone who used that sense, but then, i'm not a philosopher by trade.  The most common name for the physicalism philosphy is ""materialism""  even more common than the word ""physicalism"".  Do you really think Dennett believes in at type of Cartesian physicalism that there really is someplace within in the brain where it all comes together, but that that place just involves electricity and/or quantum effects?  Seriously?  I'm very sympathetic to wanting to get your opinion in.  I realize the article as it current stands is VERY pro-Dennett, and I definitely want to get around to all the arguments both against dennett's reasoning, for CM, and for dualism.  Truth be told, I hate Dennett's take on consciousness.  BUT  do you really think Dennnett believes in Cartesian Physicalism, but not Cartesian Materialism?  That there's some place in the brain where everything is stored, but since it uses ENERGY instead of just pure matter, it's not TECHINCALLY materialism?   If you sincerely believe that, then I'm do apologize for not gettting into it here.   
 # Representationalism.   Why the war on this one.  Do we really believe Cartesian Materialism is NOT a kind of Representationalism?  Do we just disagree that the definition overly equates Representationalism with CM? or do we just stylistically believe the article shouldn't get into that.  
 # The ""plenum"" quote.  I thought we agreed that it wasn't a good candidate for this page and maybe belonged better on Dennett or some other page ?  I see it's re-entered into the edit war. 
 # About Global Workspace theory  don't throw something that big in without talking about it not in a truce as finicky as this.   
 #Furthermore  Arguments FOR CM go in the ""Arguments For"" section, yes?  For all the arguments we have for CM being made on the talk page, the section the go in is sparse.    
 # I'm not going to sort through all the edits to find out what happened to it, but there was a really super straw man sentence that was part of the compromise for using Dennett's definition.  If you guys both agree it was bad, by all means take it out, but the term ""Straw Man"" argument comes up a LOT in discussioning CM (O&O; have a review of some of the straw man accusations in the intro to their paper), and it seems like a good part of a compromise.   
 

 ====The Important Things==== 

 *NOTHING another person can do on wikipedia justifies incivility or personal attacks.  NOTHING.  You don't just hurt the other person, you hurt the whole project.  Editors come and see all the hateful comments and they think ""I don't want to be involved with this project this is an angry place and if I say anything people are just going to undo my changes and be mad at me"".  Rudeness doesn't just hurt you two, it hurts the whole project.  No amount of provocation can ever justify it.  And there have been some HORRIBLE insults in this war. 
 *Nothing can justify more than 3 reverts in one day.  Every revert is one more revert that pops up on recent changes, and when people like me get back to the debate, it's impossible to make sense out of the mess.  Here's how it works.  You make a change, Someone reverts it, you STOP and argue about it on talk.  Instead, you two have had 49 frickin edits/reverts since the last time i was looking at this article, and the article isn't one sentence different!   Insanity. 
 *Now that the page is protected, I'd suggest you both consider that the equivalent of a ban on editing any pages on this subjects Dennett, Multiple Drafts, Conscio