Hi, I know its "customary" for users to archive their (version of) talk page discussions. You can find my "archives" by viewing the history of this page. That's not a value judgment on the discussions, its a value judgment on the custom. Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love Citemark too, but I don't care for the excess metadata. I tried playing around with the javascript, but I have no real ability there. Since I saw you just posted an update to the citemark page, I thought I'd ask if it was possible to make a simple FF version with just url, title, date, and accessdate (in that order), and without linebreaks. And, if possible, to auto format the dates in standard style (dd MM yyyy...27 April 2010). You'd definitely be on my awesome list :D — Huntster (t@c)01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you bet. I wish there was something like this for google books. I kept the selection→quote feature; it probably comes in handy. If you want to turn off leading zeros for day of the month, like 01 May 2010, just delete the word true so the parenthesis at the very end are empty ()
Hi, i see you reverted my edits on History of China. Well my reason that I change it to BC/AD is because that has been in use for about 2000 years and has been the standard and the BCE/CE is not widely used. People are familiar with BC/AD but may be confused by BCE/CE. Does for example 1323 BC equal to 1323 BCE? and besides, BCE/CE are secular in idea. Wolfdog406 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please see WP:ERA. The article used BC/AD from the beginning until it was changed in violation of WP:ERA. It is only important to be consistent within an article. No other article or template has a bearing as far as WP:ERA is concerned. If something else got broken, then it should be fixed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@VMS Mosaic, I suggested Wolfdog406 see WP:ERA, so perhaps you could infer I've seen it, and I'm acting according my interpretation of it? The History of China article has been using BCE/CE for over a year and, as I mentioned, there have been well over 500 edits since then. That implies a long standing de facto consensus. There must to be a good reason + consensus for you to make your desired change at this time. You combined your attempt to change it to BCE/CE with a vandalism revert and marked it as minor. One reason I oppose the change is because it will break wikilinks to sections of the article that have BCE/CE in the names. You do not yet have consensus and I suggest you refrain from edit warring.
I see that Template:History of China was designed to go either way via a parameter. I agree that the choices made in other articles are not sufficient justification to make such a change, however it's something editors might like to consider in terms of reaching a new consensus.
Um, you are, by definition, the one who is warring, as you are reverting without discussing on the talk page. Yworo (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yworo, I was trying to respond thoughtfully to your message here... please don't be confrontational. The template isn't hurting anything. I don't think the "undue" template is being abused and I think you made some valid points at Talk:Sex magic#Partiality. I'll respond there asap. K,thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, repeated reversion w/o discussion first is confrontational. It also doesn't hurt anything for the template to be off for a while. Yworo (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to note that another editor, one whose name I recognize as having authored books on the topic, has already agreed with me about the use of the undue tag. Yworo (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to respond to the article's talk page when you keep messaging me here on my user talk. A second editor already agreed with WP:UNDUE so that's 2 in favor and 2 not in favor. Maybe some more editors will see it and chime in (even help improve the article).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for people who want to discriminate and make others feel uncomfortable - you know that I could have you up for being biggoted just in your previous comments towards me before I replied you on the edits page - I saw what you wrote in your "briefly describe edits section" (i.e. like you telling me I am "prostelyzing" etc - for this is an accusation of sorts) ! If wikipedia claims to be so neutral - then as a participant, don't use terminology that has essentialist overtones or picks on a group of people (i.e Christians or Muslims) to make them out to be bad. Doing that is BAD and not welcome on this site. Objectivity means ALL across the board - and it means also allowing for the input of others where extra information on the page may be needed because otherwise it would be lacking in substance. At the top of the cultural appropriation page, there was a request for more input, more substance. And it is important to be sensitive to the fact there are some terms/words which are going to be racially controversial and I would appreciate that you respect equality by refraining from inserting them into the text. The terms I used were not "villifying any particular group/s" and were instead rather neutral. What's more is I did not throw out huge chunks of other people's stuff. I filled in information I felt was relevant from an indigenous person's perspective and if you can't respect that, well you do have a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siuyinh (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to sign Siuyinh (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Siuyinh, I see where the mis–communication began:
A common sort of cultural appropriation is the adoption of the iconography of another culture. Obvious examples include sports teams using Native Americantribal names, tattoos of the Cross of Christ,Polynesian tribal iconography, Chinese characters, or Celtic bands worn by people who have no interest in, or understanding of, their original cultural significance. When these artifacts are regarded as objects that merely "look cool", or when they are mass produced cheaply as consumerkitsch, people who venerate and wish to preserve their indigenous cultural traditions may be offended. In Australia, Aboriginalartists have discussed an 'authenticity brand' to ensure consumers are aware of artworks claiming false Aboriginal significance.[1][2] The movement for such a measure gained momentum after the 1999 conviction of John O'Loughlin for the fraudulent sale of works described as Aboriginal but painted by non-indigenous artists.[3]
I honestly didn't mean to imply that you were "prostelyzing". I asked what Christian culture you had in mind because Christianity has been introduced all over the world. What I mean is Christianity proselytizes, so in general, Christians would be pleased when a potential–Christian commits to a "Cross of Christ" tattoo. I can't imagine Christians would consider the word "proselytisation" to be insulting, from their point–of–view, they're "saving souls" or "spreading the word"—those are euphemisms—the formal term is "proselytizing".
In the context of the article, all of the examples where "Appropriated by people who have no interest in, or understanding of, their original cultural significance."
sports team names of Native American tribes,
tattoos of the Cross of Christ
tattoos of Polynesian tribal iconography,
tattoos of Chinese characters,
jewelry of Celtic knot–work ("art/bands").
Christ isn't a culture. In my opinion, your insert didn't fit—it was confusing and inappropriate. Another editor undid your addition of "obvious" to "Obvious examples include..." and you changed it back*, without comment and then removedChristianization, Islamization and Xenocentrism without comment.
^* Various portions were also rearranged so the diff was confusing. I see I was mistaken, you didn't forget to include the paragraph: "A bindi dot when worn as a decorative item by a non-Hindu woman could be considered cultural appropriation, along with the use of henna in mehndi as a decoration outside traditional ceremonies." Rather, you merged it with the previous paragraph and moved:
“
In some cases, a culture usually viewed as the target of cultural appropriation can become implicated as the agent of appropriation, particularly after colonization and an extensive period re-rganization [sic] of that culture under the nation-state system. For example, the government of Ghana has been accused of cultural appropriation in adopting the Caribbean Emancipation Day and marketing it to African American tourists as an "African festival". A bindi dot when worn as a decorative item by a non-Hindu woman could be considered cultural appropriation, along with the use of henna in mehndi as a decoration outside traditional ceremonies.
”
When two editors undo a minor addition like "Obviously", you shouldn't keep reverting. (That's an example of "tendentious editing"). You could post your reasoning on the talk page in order to solicit consensus...
You say "At the top of the ... page, there was a request for more input, more substance." Actually, it said the article "needs attention from an expert"...
{Expert-subject|sociology|date=November 2008}
If you're a sociology expert, that's super, but I hope you don't expect me to be impressed by your claim of being "indigenous"... WP:NPA still applies to indigenous Sociology experts who call other users bigoted.
I have to laugh... I realize you're new to Wikipedia and everyone needed to get the hang of things like edit summaries, consensus and undo when they were new. By all means, "have me up", if you don't realize you've over–reacted. The truth is, everyone gets a bit upset from time to time and that's all just water under the bridge. There's a lot to learn—hold on to that enthusiasm and easy does it—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'll reply in time, just let us give other editors more time to present their views (as you realized the bizarre actions of the third guy [he initiated an AfD on Taijitu after he himself proposed its creation] made me to not take him seriously anymore). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, references for each view should be indicated individually rather than en masse, but thank you for verifying and I don't have a problem with it so long as all the references aren't simply deleted, (along with any indication that some sort of controversy exists).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inferno, Canto VII
To Plutus, who is menacing Dante, Virgil spake
Then he turned round unto that bloated lip, And said: “Be silent, thou accursed wolf; Consume within thyself with thine own rage.”
The project encourages you to use your watchlist to monitor articles and discussions in the area of Philosophy. There are some special pages which the project provides to help keep you aware of current activity:
Watchlist and monitor the Log of Assessment Changes. This is a log of all changes to any Assessment values of articles within the purview of the project. You are encouraged to help in the assessment of articles.
For your convenience, you may also choose to place the Philosophy Navigation Banner on your user page as well by adding {{Philosophy/Nav}}.
Archives
Hi Machine Elf. Since you said you are new, so would probably not know this anyway, I thought I'd let you know that once something has been archived (eg AfD discussion, discussion on a noticeboard or article talk page etc) you should not go in and edit it. You'll notice at the top of closed AfDs that it says 'do not edit'. I've reverted your edit to the Afd on Sabbatic Witchcraft for this reason. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EotR, I'm was about to open an ANI case about that. Although I'm fairly new, I think I'm able to make a pretty good case that it served no purpose except to cast false aspersions at me personally, and thus can be deleted, although strictly speaking the (completely false) accusations were about "lies" and "behavior".
I'd like you to know that if only someone had just told me you're a young Wikipedian, I would have totally understood and certainly would have cancelled the WQA. I think admins should understand where young users are coming from and act accordingly. But I was left to figure it out on my own.
I'll rewrite my ANI case so that it doesn't say it's been removed. But I wish you would have recognized that Lulubyrd was lying, big-time, and that you would have seen I gave a reason which, arguably, allowed it to be deleted. Most importantly, I wish you had let someone else make that call. After all, you know what a queen I can be when I'm really upset ;-D Probably best to just stay out of each other's hair with anything delicate, don't you think? Sorry if I'm not explaining myself well... I'll ask Johnuniq and E. Ripley to come by too, just to make sure we all have everything sorted out. K,thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not followed this and have probably missed many details, but my advice would be to recognize that bad stuff happens, and we are all likely to encounter minor injustice from time to time. Yes, if editor A says editor B lied, that is an attack that contravenes WP:NPA, and at least one post at WP:Articles for deletion/Sabbatic Witchcraft warrants an NPA warning. However, while I have not looked at any details in this particular AfD, it is common for feelings to run hot in deletion discussions since the values that people believe in are being challenged, and there is generally a fair allowance made for occasional minor bad behavior when under stress. I suggest that a few days should be allowed for people to calm down with no action taken now; after that, if someone makes further unwarranted claims regarding Machine Elf 1735, then warnings and possibly noticeboard action can be taken. If wanted, feel free to contact me on my talk page (provided a few days cooling off has occurred), and I would be happy to provide on opinion on a disagreement. ANI action may get a bad result unless all these points are addressed first: report is brief and understandable; issue is ongoing and serious (a couple of "liar" accusations is not sufficient); other remedies have been sought, including discussion on user talk pages and appropriate noticeboard like WP:WQA. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Johnuniq, EotR, You nailed it, my blurb was too long and they said I should make an effort to talk to Lulubyrd about it. He he, Judge Dee. Ya, I'm sure pocket lint becomes slightly more exciting than those boards for the admins after awhile. And thanks for that EotR, they said Lulubyrd could still strike it/remove it too, so probably best to patch things up by WP:AGFing that'll happen. I don't mind making an overture, but I'm glad, either way, we can both just go about our wiki-fun, no harm/no foul/no stick—if lie lies are generally covered by NPA, I'll just make it go away eventually if Lulubyrd won't.
It's true, I shouldn't let it get to me... just compounds teh dramz. I've probably caused that sad little AfD to get more attention by complaining than it ever would have gotten otherwise. But some good's come of it anyway, thanks guys—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its unfortunate you thought my edit was some kind of joke. Perhaps I went a bit far with the Jediism, but what exactly was wrong with the inclusion of Reform Taoism and Dudeism? I think they have purpose to be mentioned somewhere in the history of Taoism; the philosophy of Taoism is gaining more and more popularity in the Western world. They're manifestations of taoist thought all the same, and I sympathise far more with them, than all that religious nonsense that Taoism was tainted by throughout history. Where do YOU suggest they go, in the popular culture section of the Taoist page?!ThePhantasos (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to comply with WP:RS and the organization is obviously not WP:NOTABLE. Plus, your description wasn't WP:NPOV: "that undermine the more superstitious outlook that Taoist religion developed into, and seek to reintroduce the fundamental philosophic concepts to 21st Century world". Should read: "a religious organization which founder Michael J. Toley admits is 'actually quite new' but nonetheless claims the Taoist religion developed a "superstitious outlook" and, although they have no clergy, they do have a PO Box in Colorado, with which 'Reform Taoists' will seek to reform Taoists (quarter of a billion+) by 'reintroducing the fundamental philosophic concepts to 21st Century world'." whatever that's supposed mean.
I assumed from your other edits that you probably didn't exactly intend to be more than a little offensive.
So dude, if you honestly want my advice, I suggest you catch a clue about cultural appropriation, and say "thanks trippy dao dudes for all that tasty religious nonsense that I am sym-pa-ti-co with."—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well from the points you've provided, I can see the 'error in my ways'. I'm not overly neutral and fluent when editing large sections of an article, and often subject to bias. I admit that I disagree with what I had written in the statement regarding the billion+ religious taoists, it was somewhat ill-mannered of me. In regards to the dudeism, I apologise if it looked like I was advertising the philosophy?, it was merely something I thought relevant of some recognition. As for your last remarks - if you don't mind my asking, though I can imagine you may at this time - does "tasty religious nonsense" indicate that you're not in fact respective of taoist philosophy?ThePhantasos (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing fine with the editing. I didn't mean to give you a hard time about the Dudeism thing. It's like from that movie, (I didn't see it). We really did talk like that around here, way back when... not so much these days.
My friend, read the great philosophers to make sense of sense, if it's better to admit of no nonsense, and when you're waiting, read the sense to make philosophers of sense; but the Tao in none of these is the eternal Tao which all things respect. What would not?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd like your opinion of this edit to the article, which I noticed after I posted the above [1] - it's a phrase the editor keeps adding to articles even, I believe, where it makes no sense. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Machine Elf 1735. You have new messages at Yworo's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Edit Assist
A delayed thanks for your technical help editing Double Bind.
I know the rule is to put most recent entries on the bottom of the talk page but I get the impression no one is reading them. I suppose silence--vs. a revert--says something positive so I shouldn't complain.
For many years I had the vague impression that few people understood DBs which has been confirmed in editing the DB entry--and maybe that's the problem. --Margaret9mary (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not many thanks for the hard work, but it doesn't go unappreciated. I appreciate the work you've done for the article anyway — and I'm happy to help. Silence is definitely golden, no doubt about it. It's astonishing some of the analogies people have come up with.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Postmodern Wicca et al.
There are five stages of grief every Wikipedia spammer will go through when the content is removed. These steps are a natural and timeless part of life, but it may be helpful to know what to expect and how to cope. It can be difficult to come to terms with the realization that one's business, interests, or existence in general are not relevant to the rest of the world in the form of a Wikipedia entry.
The five stages of grieving are:
Denial: "This is not spam. My website/article is important/relevant/useful/reliable/unique/spectacular."
Anger: "How dare you do this to me?! You have no right to censor me! I am going to report you!"
Bargaining: "Well, if I can't have my site/article here, neither should that other guy."
Depression: "It's very sad to see that a great site like Wikipedia is so very unfair."
Acceptance: "I am leaving Wikipedia forever. It's your loss. Goodbye, cruel world."
Tips for Wikipedians
It is the job of every Wikipedian to help grieving spammers move through the process and arrive at the fifth step as quickly as possible. Without your help, they may find themselves unable to move past a particular step, which will only prolong the pain. Being stuck on step one can lead to protracted discussions and edit warring. Step two can cause retaliatory vandalism and sockpuppetry. Too much of step three invariably causes excessive whining on noticeboards and the village pump, which really just heaps embarrassment on the already-grieving spammer. And allowing step four to go on for too long leads to ineffectual, maudlin rants on the spammer's userpage or, sometimes, on the actual website in question.
Eventually, though, every spammer will move on to stage four. They will express their disappointment in the heavy-handedness of Wikipedia, the bias of its editors, the short-sightedness of the policies, and your own worth as a Wikipedian. It is quite likely that references will be made to fascism, communism, or George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Take heart, and remember that this is only a natural part of the healing process. You are a good person. Be strong. If you are exceptionally lucky, Nazism will be mentioned early, thus removing from you the need to further humor the spammer. Victory is yours, hold your head high.
I think it's a good idea to delete Postmodern Wicca and recreate as a clean redirect. I'll do that - have you copied the material you need already? Like you I am concerned with the wiccamagazine.com link, it's a virtually empty website and of no use whatever as a WP:RS. I'd support you in deleting it and if you don't feel like doing so I'll do it myself. As for needing an admin here, I prefer not to use my admin buttons on pages where I have a vested interest, except in non-controversial ways. But I'm willing and happy to engage as an editor, and likewise you don't need any permission from me to edit however you like on any page here on WP. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)19:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just running off to an appt this afternoon. It's not so localized, and there are sequences of tiny edits, which is why I was hoping for the history. I do still need to read the talk page. You might be thinking of Talk:Wicca, (or maybe I really need to read that page). The thing is, recreating it as a clean redirect doesn't really solve the issue I'm suggesting, because it would still work. If it were just renamed... on the AfD, someone mentioned an alternative phrase, I don't recall it right now (and I have to go). At the start of this, there were 8 hits on Google for "Postmodern Wicca". Last I checked, there were 33 including her wicca mag on page 1 right after the WP articles. It's just not a term that people are likely to search on, unless they're following this story. What was it she suggested? 400,000?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think the odds are that any of the sources even string both words together in a row (without a comma or period between them), much less define it as a topic of discourse? Yworo (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I looked, it just need to be tagged and bagged. Most of it had been moved to Postmodern religion or something, (looked like a bunch of China tourist websites). On Deconstructing Life-Worlds: Buddhism, Christianity, Culture has ℤ∃ℝ∅... but it claims to be a deconstruction of postmodern thought in Buddhism and both words do appear on 5 pages, (plus the back cover). Academic "postmodernist" writing is barely coherent at best, but that kind of non-academic "reflexivity"... I guess a good "pc" term would be primary gibberish?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the article says it best: “There is no absolute version of reality, no absolute truths. Postmodern religion strengthens the perspective of the individual and weakens the strength of institutions and religions that deal with objective realities. Postmodern religion considers that there are no universal religious truths or laws, rather, reality is shaped by social, historical and cultural contexts according to the individual, place and or time.”—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a deep breath....
¡ƒ ℐ оиℓџ нa∂ д ℋєaят ♫…
....and although I guess you will have seen it, have a look at my comments on Talk:Postmodern Buddhism. As far as I can see it there is little to choose between you and User:Kary247 right now. Yes, personally I agree that the article is irredeemably flawed. But you are not going to improve it by continuing a flamewar at its talk page, and neither are you going to affect its chances at AfD. Other editors and the closing admin will simply see a lot of poor behaviour from one new editor and one experienced one. I agree that Kary has a lot to learn about editing it but xe is not getting good modelling from you right now. I will have no hesitation in placing a short block on either of your accounts if the behaviour worsens. I will be placing a similarly strong comment with Kary but please don't feel any schadenfreude when you read it; this is the more important message for you to take on board. Sorry to be so blunt but for the sake of some calm back off and let the process work its way through. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)00:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kim. Bravo. Sadly, it wasn't a tactic, just trying to defend myself. Plus, I'm tired from trying to maintain some sense of decorum responding at the spam forum and I was irritated by the repeated attacks. I'm staying out of the AfDs, more dramz, but I don't think the article should be deleted?! The impression I got was that it's something of a foregone conclusion? so I imagined it would probably get folded into pomo religion, which (I guess) has a better chance of survival. Ironically, I'd delete religion and keep pomo buddha. I don't imagine a closing admin even reads the talk page but there's no question, the subject is notable. The current two paragraphs don't effectively address that subject. I don't really expect anyone to read the over-lengthy notes (I didn't have time/motivation to edit them down, I'm wordy). There are several good sources in the 7, they're just no good at the end of that paragraph/sentence. I'm not planning on editing; too much hassle... The notes are to encourage constructing the article from material that really is in the sources, rather than trying to source those two paragraphs. There are two additional sources I gave that would be really good. One of them even uses the pomo buddha term (albeit with a lowercase p). I liked your comment about ancient v modern syncretism too, it brought a big smile. The good kind, not the one in the dictionary.
It's nice of you to say experienced, but I'm not so very confident... I'm not really able to be a good wp model for anyone. I don't know a good way to deal with that kind of repetitive craziness. I gratefully welcome anything you can do to make it stop.
It's a worry, because the last time I just ignored her and let her make post after post about me... it wasn't pretty. But you've helped quite a lot with that actually and I do appreciate it and trust your judgement.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking my diatribe in such good humour! I don't think the AfD for Postmodern Buddhism is necessarily a foregone conclusion; if the article were improved that would certainly shift the balance. I had absolutely no idea you were in favour of keeping it - I'd honestly never have known! Why don't you try and improve it - you obviously know something about the subject and with all the detailed work you've done looking at the references you must have some ideas about how the article could be supported? I'm always just as influenced by the content of the article than the arguments at AfD and I think other people may be as well. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)14:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not surprised you didn't know considering the barrage of posts from Kary that followed. I figured it's best an AfD discussion remains on the AfD page, so I didn't address it directly, (just in so far as proposing more sources and a few specifics that the article should focus on). I know it was too long; I just didn't feel motivated to make it shorter, but at the same time, I didn't want it to completely go to waste. I had had the opposite opinion myself until I examined the first and second references, (I had only been looking at the 7 sources tacked on at the end). I don't know if the page is still the same, but at the time, I thought removing the distracting sources and leaving the two healthy ones, would help people notice the history of academic works in continental/postmodern philosophy regarding Buddhism (not my strongest area of philosophy, actually). As it was, a reviewer would most likely take advantage of the clickable refs, (as I had done), and see a travel guide, the atheism page (as you had), or even get redirected to www.celebrity-gossip.net... None of them properly supported the 2nd paragraph and they were all China specific. Also, I didn't want to contradict anyone but I mentioned that none of the group of 7 technically needed to say anything about postmodernism for that paragraph (sentence).
I guess I would be a "keep"... in that so far as I know, the page shouldn't be deleted just because the current article doesn't address the notability of the subject; but if I posted to the AfD, Kary would just make even more posts about me there. My one edit to the AfDs was to prevent her from obfuscating the page history: [11]. (Please don't read an obsessive behavior into trying to help prevent that, I would very much prefer to be able to ignore her). At least the accusatory posts on the AfD don't mention me by name, there, but the comment she removed on Talk:Postmodern Buddhism, [12], should have been stricken out, and that does nothing to amend any of the rearranged and altered posts she blamed me for simultaneously[13][14][15], never mind the hyperbole and miss-framing.
It would be asking for drama if I tried to edit pomo buddha. I really do appreciate the heads up, as I was letting her get the better of me... it was certainly twice as annoying because she didn't take advantage of the material I provided to improve and expand a short list of good references. (I notice she hasn't given a page number and instead removed the page needed tag, which is typical). Frankly, I don't mind if the article is deleted given the edit summaries she's used on talk page. WP:BEANS encouraged by my comment that I can't respond to questions in her edit summaries.
More WP:BEANS in that I had asked Yworo if he thought informal moderation would help with her fallacious and irrational responses on Talk:Groove (music) and Talk:Rare groove. Since then, it's become clear from the way she keeps returning to it, that she has a deeper COI issue with Rare groove than I had imagined based on my first impression of her rare groove website. I've already responded that I won't comply with her request to remove a comment I made at Talk:Rare groove. Here's the result [16] (in the § below this):
she has expanded her request to include a later comment that called attention to her socking (you might not be familiar with this one [17]);
she has posted my comments out of context with added emphasis that was not my own;
she says "the comment 'your url' seems to be connected to some kind of attempted outing" when I have never outed her in any way (you know about the gender thing);
she has misrepresented what the admin said on the project spam list [18], implying that the message was not meant for "both parties";
she stated that I had specifically been given an article to read (ironically, it was WP:LETGO which obviously, she's not doing);
that same admin had already said that Yworo's statement was correct [19], (although he had thought mine was older than it was it [20]), but point taken that I shouldn't have responded, even on Yworo's behalf, because it had already been resolved (doh) [21], including comments like "very likely coi" [22][23][24], (I had asked Yworo about it and he thought it was probably too late to go to the COIN noticeboard), so that would have been that;
nonetheless, she posted [25] that Yworo had received a warning for edit warring, which actually, he did not receive, and it just goes to show it's no misunderstanding on her part, because she repeated exactly the same misinformation [26] in response.
at any rate, I really do feel compelled to add that she was the one who started it again—reason being that she had been blocked for 3RR rather than spam and her Rare groove url had been proposed to the spam blacklist, which she apparently takes to mean that the spam concerns were rejected, (I guess because it was mentioned as a next step);
but she really did receive (at least) four spam warnings for inserting spam citations (six times) on that exact same line (plus external links twice in that article alone);
and she really was blocked for 3RR over that exact same line (so perhaps I gave her good advice, seeing as she had just unilaterally attempted to redirect the article [27] and went on to earn a warning for edit warring not long afterwards);
although she "won" the so-called debate (in so far as I didn't revert her a third time and the article remains the way she had wanted it), she is nonetheless continuing with the same distorted rationalization that she was being "pc", (the verifiable source actually describes the scene as multiracial), pursuant to her alleged source, Aint No Black in the Union Jack, which failed WP:V, both for the page she specified, and for containing no reference to Rare groove on any page whatsoever [28]);
she continues to fail to hear what I've said (both there and at Talk:Groove (music)[29]), instead making false or distorted statements about what I said and did, intent on deflecting this harassment toward a non issue—when it's perhaps more insulting to suggest that black people would even take offense at the phrase "once-exotic music";
she says she isn't trying to "assert a URL"... I didn't say she was, I had been trying to provide a citation for the language she, herself, had previously inserted and that she insisted needed a citation (as a rationalization for edit warring over the addition of her own link) but subsequently she removed that language altogether so that it wouldn't need a cite (and I haven't touched it);
she states: "I would like to move forward with my work here on wikipedia, however, I feel uncomfortable with the implications and I would appreciate it if you could delete you comment from the discussion page." however, I'm not preventing her moving forward with her work on any page but it's ridiculous for her to claim as "implications" the past mistakes she denies making on that very same line... she needs to WP:LETGO and move on herself;
by recommending that I do so without cause, she implies that she's in danger of being falsely reporting by me for spam (something no one has ever done);
rather than acknowledging that I've placed my concerns about socking with her IP address on her IP's talk page, (she even fooled Yworo: [30]), instead she's suggesting that I should report her to that notice board, (which I have no intention of doing);
she mentions that she doesn't think an article talk page is the correct place to deal with this issue, but I didn't say that it was—I had already declined, and I was referring to her second request to remove the reference to WP:LINKFARM, which wasn't even meant to be mean spirited, and about which I'd already responded at talk pomo buddha, (the 7 sources that she admits to taking from the Buddhism article).
I'm very tired of this and I accept that putting a finer point on it was (and is) not going to help, (and this whole sloppy tldr train wreck won't do any better). I would really just prefer to have no further contact, and I need help with how to do that. I don't know how to respond. I'd certainly delete it if it weren't for the whole business about not altering talk page histories.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I revert that with the edit summary: "Undid revision 405327000 by Kary247 (talk) rvv—Stop altering talk page discussions. It will auto archive after 7 [more] days, fwi." [emphasis added]
Kary proceeds to post there 11 more times, to which Yworo or I responded... But, although I was sincerely trying to provide accurate responses, because I, myself, had mentioned that she had lengthened the archive time, meanwhile, this is the subterfuge she was posting to the two admin's who had blocked or warned her about edit warring, (one of whom ended the discussion at long last)...
I am trying to refrain from communicating with Machine Elf as I received a warning for edit warring, however, he is over at wikispam where he and Yworo listed my user name endlessly commenting in some kind of effort to keep my user name listed there on an ongoing basis rather than allowing the talk board to archive. How do I resolve this? --Kary247 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kary's "trying to refrain" and yet, meanwhile, she posts to:
I am trying to refrain from communicating with Machine Elf as I received a warning for edit warring, however, he is over at wikispam where he and Yworo listed my user name endlessly commenting in some kind of effort to keep my user name listed there on an ongoing basis rather than allowing the talk board to archive.
How do I resolve this?
Given they have already listed the url they are bothered by for proposed black list or whatever, can they keep posting endlessly on the wikispam talk - the result of this is that my user name stays there and says - links to wikispam--Kary247 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to refrain from communicating with Machine Elf as I received a warning for edit warring, however, he is over at wikispam where he and Yworo listed my user name endlessly commenting in some kind of effort to keep my user name listed there on an ongoing basis rather than allowing the talk board to archive.
How do I resolve this?
Given they have already listed the url they are bothered by for proposed black list or whatever, can they keep posting endlessly on the wikispam talk - the result of this is that my user name stays there and says - links to wikispam--Kary247 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ask them to refrain from repeatedly posting there so that my username gets archive because my username is saying 'links to wikispam'?
If you are unable to help, could you please let me know what process I follow so that they stop endlessly posting on this board so it won't archive? Thanks--Kary247 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, she posts to:
Talk:Postmodern Buddhism x6 (including the edit summary: "PLEASE NOTE EDITOR DECIDED TO DELETE HIS COMMENT, I AM LEAVING MY REPLY TO COMMENT"
-== Having a problem on the wikispam discussion board and the black list ==
Machine Elf and Yworo seem to be attempted to keep the wikispam from archiving by constantly commenting on a situation that should be resolved and archived. How do I resolve this? Can you ask them to refrain from posting on the wikispam talk considering they have already listed the url they are so bothered by to proposed blacklist and other bots and things. The issue is my username keeps say links to wikispam and the discussion board won't archive while they keep posting endless confusing comments there. Can you ask these editors stop posting there or is there some process I need to follow to do this?--Kary247 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTES
My user name has been listed here over at the proposed blacklist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SBL - and here and given that a block sufficiently resolved the situation, I feel that this relates more to edit warring, which is so pathetic. Some kind of bot has been placed in connection with my user name which resolves to ip address adobe.com which is ridiculous. A simple block should have been the first step, particularly given that the discussion page was used to list the suggested site. The editor who reverted me was warned by an admin. for edit warring. The same editor listed my user name here and over at the black list place, on the same day the 22 December. It is just so obviously a lame way to connect my user name with wikispam. How mean.--Kary247 (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was blocked for edit warring(NOT spam) at blocked for edit warring at 20.08 and yet the editor reported my user name here and at the proposed blacklist at 20.26, see Yworo listing at 20.26so what was the point of that, just being mean. I was blocked anyway, and as I have mentioned, so it is just mean and not following the suggested guidelines, to go and list my user name after I was blocked here and there regardless. Also, given you(Yworo) were spoken to by an admin. about your inappropriate role in the edit warring, this implies that you(Yworo) disregarded admin. advice and continued to edit war by listing my user name--Kary247 (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continual inappropriate requests by Yworo and Machine Elf for me to disclose information about myself online and listing endless URLs on the wikispam discussion board after they have been told by you that it is a non-issue should have been placed at conflict of interest(?) and the issue should be resolved - this is after the url has been posted to proposed blacklist.--Kary247 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the adding of the link stopped and has not resumed, I've declined the blacklisting request for now. Although, if innapropriate use of the link resumes, it can be resubmitted and I would add it to the blacklist at that point. I'll take a look at the WT:WPSPAM page, I hadn't been following where the discussion progressed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't let her try to manipulate anyone else regarding this and please make her quit harassing me. I do not deserve any of this and I am not the bad guy.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13:42, 5 January 2011 Kary removed the following request, and in the hope it might have been a tacit way of agreeing to WP:LETGO... I put this discussion in a collapsed box, 00:45, 6 January 2011. But no sooner had I done so than Kary's talking smack about me with her IP at User talk:Yworo, because she: "Just dropped by to say goodbye" 00:52, 6 January 2011...
"Politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively"
Please remove your comment on the rare groove discussion board as I have previously requested. The comment is not relevant to the specific discussion, as my comments in the discussion focused on language choices and the use of politically correct terminology in the footnotes of the reference section. You comments seem to imply that I am a 'spammer' and that I used a 'sock puppet'.
The comments that I would like you to remove are:
"I'll remind you that you were very recently blocked for edit warring about it. You've also receiving four SPAM warnings for inserting your URL"
I am really interested in focusing on sources in a critical way to ensure an unbiased and neutral viewpoint. I was not blocked for edit warring about the language choices in the text. Similarly, the comment 'your url' seems to be connected to some kind of attempted outing - you have been given an article to read about this by an administrator and the same administrator has comment that you seem to bringing up events from the past for no valid reason.
As I was in no way attempting to assert a URL in relation to this particular discussion, I feel that you seem to be trying to strengthen a discussion about political correctness by referring in an un-constructive way to a previous issue that was not connected.
I would like to move forward with my work here on wikipedia, however, I feel uncomfortable with the implications and I would appreciate it if you could delete you comment from the discussion page.
If you feel that I am spamming, please report it to the relevant noticeboard. If you feel that I am using a sock puppet, please report it to the relevant noticeboard.
I don't think the discussion page of an article is the correct place to deal with the issue.
It appears that on the 2nd January 2011 you are continuing to preparing a conflict of interest report about me in your user subpages - this is a shame as I thought this issue was resolved. If you must compile this type of report in your user sub-pages, please refrain from having sections of the wikispam talk noticeboard - your edit 2nd January - included in the report as this keeps bringing up this info. in "what links here on my username". Also, when you run an internal search with my username, the copy that you have taken from the wikispam noticeboard comes up. An administrator has already said that this is a non-issue. You are of course, free to file a conflict of interest report, but having this information in your user sub-pages, so that it indexes next to my user name, feels like an attack.
I am sure this is not what user subpages should be used for.
User:Machine_Elf_1735/COIN
If you need to access information from the wikispam talk board, it will be on the page or in the archives, having it in your subpages, means that this information keeps coming up as linked to my user name.--Kary247 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that years in sexagenary cycles are different from years in the traditional Chinese calendar. The ancient Chinese Astrologist usually takes the start of a year from Li Chun (Feb 4 every year), the system, it's also called "Shichen Bazi" (時辰八字), which has absolute no relationship with the Chinese calendar. In the Chinese calendar, a standard year only contains 354 days, which makes it inappropriate for astrology observation. --LC.Lau (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely bring it up on the article's talk page (Talk:Chinese astrology). It's a really major change to have been wrong all this time, but that's certainly not impossible. It should be presented for discussion with other editors though... Your changes haven't been deleted, they're still available by clicking the View history tab at the top of Chinese astrology (or click here). I'd be glad to paste it into a new section of the talk page if you like?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I marked it minor, I can't imagine a serious good faith grammar error but an IP adding 1 letter from "a die is thrown" to "a dice is thrown" should be fixed, don't you think? Anyway, because it's quantum mechanics, I think it needs to be clear that it's 1 rather than 2 dice. I actually thought about changing it to "one of a pair of..." but I thought that might seem confusingly irrelevant to most readers.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense when you explain it that way. It's just that I've been seeing this comedy going on since I started here. Die and dice, BCE and BC, CE and AD. It's it's it's driving me crazy! Slightsmile (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't know what you meant, and I'm still not certain, but I did a search and was surprised to find a couple of wiki articles that say, in Britain, dice singular is becoming increasingly acceptable. They're not sourced but taking it at face value and assuming that might be it... I'd just observe that I didn't have a clue it's becoming acceptable anywhere—the conventional wisdom is that it's just plain wrong. I couldn't find any consensus or discussions about it, but presumably WP:ENGVAR would be the relevant guideline? I noticed template:dice offers no explanation for the "ongoing edits":
Usage
The purpose of this template is to help mitigate the ongoing edits from unregistered users who do not know that the correct singular form of the plural “dice” is “die”.
The template will substitute the wikitext given in the first parameter, which defaults to the piped link for the Dice article shown above: {{dice}} → [[dice|die]].
The link can be modified or removed, for example... like so: {{dice|die}} → die.
So... yes, it's a drag to have to tidy up after WP:ERA–inappropriate edits, but some people take BC/AD as a sort of religious mission and that has been an enormous waste of time for the project with countless archives full of discussion on the subject. In this respect, I'd say the comparison is a stretch vis-à-vis such a simple undo of an apparently sophomoric mistake. (No offence intended to the IP whose prior edits included only minor corrections to Batsuit and General Grievous).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal at all - the "driving me crazy" was humour, right? Sure if dice - die affects the meaning then for sure fix it. Everyone has their own editing ways - for example me, if I see someone preferring AD and BC because of some religous thing, or the old US UK spelling dance - I so couldn't be bothered. Slightsmile (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are your edits constructive?
I'd like to ask if you think your edits to JavaScript Syntax are constructive. Do you know the difference between a false and falsy value? 72.152.120.17 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask you the same question: do you think this is editing constructively? Thank you pointing out an error, but it wasn't at all clear from your first WP:EDITSUM that there was an error. You included no edit summary in your following edit so it seemed like you just WP:DONTLIKE it. There was no reason to remove the example entirely, as well as the explanations from the other examples... and delete a pair of string delimiters... (presumably a mistake on your part?)
However, I have every confidence you were capable of easily fixing it. And whereas I see you tried to add different examples... and soon deleted them, my confidence remains undiminished, and I would never callously announce that you should “go learn JavaScript” due to a bug in all your examples.
When you reverted my edit, almost all of the changes you reverted were completely unrelated to the previously unidentified error.
At least you've finally said what the problem is, however, your edit summary was extremely rude.
18:51, 4 March 2011 “(Undid revision 416826330 by Machine Elf 1735 (talk) -- Please learn JAVASCRIPT before editing this page. The results of running YOUR code DO NOT MATCH what happens.)”
I notice you triggeredAbuse Filter 47, ("Prolific sockpuppeteers"), resulting in several of your attempts to edit my talk page (in order to fix the nowiki tag) having been disallowed. So, no hard feelings about that little reminder to use the Preview button, I hope?
“== User Machine Elf 1735 ==”
It's inappropriate to name a section after a user like that. Focus on content.
“User:Machine Elf 1735 keeps reverting my edits and reverting my reverts.”
That's not true, I've reverted your edits once, and reverted your revert once. See WP:BRD.
“He has put in blatantly untrue information into this article,”
No, that is blatantly untrue. There was a simple error in one example which you failed to point out.
“such as true == "0", "Only ±0 and NaN are false Numbers. ", and "Only the empty String is false."”
As you're aware, I corrected “true == "0"” to read “"0"?true:false” why are you harping on that? Both ±0 and NaN would evaluate to false in a boolean context. You're welcome to, but not everyone uses the terms "truthy" and "falsey", probably because they sound a bit silly.
“when in fact, 3 is not equal to true, and NaN is not equal to false.”
There is no example with the number 3, and besides, 3 does evaluate to true in a boolean context, just as NaN would evaluate to false. I fail to see your point.
“There is a difference between falsy and false values in javascript, but he removed this note.”
“He even put a tenary operator into an example on equality, which is completely unrelated.”
LOL, it was not an example on equality, it was an example on automatic type coercion of booleans and the ternary operator was perfectly acceptable, especially because it demonstrates a different behavior.
“Then he goes on my talk page accusing me of "putting incorrect information" in.”
Your edit summaries were inaccurate, insufficient, and inappropriate as I've detailed at some length above.
I used Template:uw-wrongsummary to post to your talk page; it is an appropriately worded template for such situations. Please consider that you're perceived civil communication as an accusation, while perhaps failing to examine your own behavior. I see your article talk page post as a personal attack, and I see your edit summaries as uncivil.
“He also just deletes my message from his talk page and links to Wikipedia:MAJORDICK.”
Typically, you can delete from your IP user talk page as well.
You cherry picked it from an edit summary of my user talk... an edit where I was deleting a post from an IP with an unknown problem (which turned out to be a bad nowiki tag). Be that as it may, you decided to go find that edit summary yourself; it was in no way addressed to you...
javascript:alert("0"?"[[The No Asshole Rule]]":"[[WP:MAJORDICK]]")// cheerie bye
“I request he be blocked for reverting correct editing, putting in untrue information, and deleting talk messages about the issue, and etc. 72.152.120.17 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)”
I see you've allowed yourself to be dragged into the Argument page, in spite of your wanting to be left out of it, and jumped in by deleting my contributions.
Enjoy throwing your weight around without adding anything constructive to the discussion or the article?
I've made it very clear what I suggest and the fact that you characterize it as "deleting [your] contributions" just goes to show how unconstructive your interactions inevitably are. Stay off my talk page and stop edit warring.—Machine Elf 173520:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Classic element template
Hello, Machine Elf 1735. You have new messages at Template_talk:Classic_element. Message added 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, you reverted some of my edits to philosophy (metaphysics) articles. Surely you can see that overly strict application of WP rules to philosophy articles will lead to the following unfortunate consequence: Wikipedia, if it cannot interpret, explain, or illustrate, becomes "Wikiquotes", whereby all it can do is list direct quotes (small quotes, not whole books) taken from cited sources. In philosophy in particular, there is a very real danger that such uninterpreted/unillustrated small quotes will be completely uninterpretable/meaningless or even highly misleading. So, overly strict adherence to WP policy for philosophy articles leads to bad articles. I will try to make my edits a little more in line with strict policy, but I suggest that if you want WP to be a positive and useful resource (as surely, we all do), then you need to use your discretion a bit more wisely. Thanks,
Stho002 (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a reply but I got a bit distracted. I do agree that the old lede sitting underneath it is better. I hope Stho002 will agree that it needs more work and attempt to incorporate his contributions better into the body of the article. Will post more soon.—Machine Elf 173516:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stho002, I'm glad you wrote. I had been working on this note and I'm glad you didn't find those reverts too discouraging. You were clearly familiar with the identity material, but many, if not most, of the readers won't be. I think we can rely on them to make up their own minds without editorializing—collectively we can provide a neutral, non-superficial treatment of the major perspectives. A speculative, inquisitive, and conversational tone (essay-like) is totally fine on talk pages, as opposed to articles, but your behavior at Talk:Identity (philosophy) was combative and totally out of line, (especially the post which BoK mentioned at Wikiquette)..
I haven't faulted you for explaining, illustrating or even interpreting... Preempting the lead of four-dimensionalism with gripes carried over from your edits at identity and segueing the “discussion” into materialism is just bad form.
FYI, the wikiquotes rhetoric won't impress anybody. I'm sure blogging is hard work. So is editing the encyclopedia. I hope you won't take it the wrong way when I say that people don't care about our opinions on philosophical issues. We should be invisible. It's a much more valuable contribution to accurately convey the opinion of an academic WP:SECONDARY source regarding the subject with no significant embellishments. Take the recently reverted edits at phlogiston theory as an independent example, they didn't “(fix excessive quoting, improve flow)”, they got it dead wrong.
The thing is, I'm not being strict... at all (nor was BofK). I'm just the guy who was telling you there's some toilet paper stuck to the bottom of your shoe. My impression was that you can do much much better... I regret it's taken me so long to reply, but life happens and perhaps the response you're now seeing from additional editors will help convince you that you need to “sort yourself out”. I'm certainly not the best candidate to be handing out advice... but there's some basics, and then there are some issues which WP editors consider very important, like WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV... In fact, these are policy; so arguing about them on user and article talk pages is pointless and you should reconsider whether editing at WP is right for you or if you're OK with that. I'm just trying to give you a heads-up about them because I wouldn't want to see you spending a lot of time on a series of edits only to be shocked that someone has reverted them. Especially when you can avoid it or fix it... Right?.
I was hoping you, yourself, would choose to spruce up your 64 edits * to identity, which I didn't revert, but meanwhile I see BofK moved the material to the article's talk page and I fully support that. Much of what I had been struggling to say here is found in the subsequent discussion there anyway. Just to be sure you're aware, “deleted” material is always available via the “history” tab. Only articles that go through the “AfD” process (articles for deletion), become unavailable. Also, in regard to your edit, it is never permissible to direct the reader to an article's talk page.
First off: the 2 most important words I can offer apart from “don't panic” *Show Preview
Adding to the top of articles is not what you want to be doing... This too has been covered at Identity (philosophy)#Lede restored but the WP:LEDE (or lead) is supposed to summarize the content of the entire article (so the references are typically covered in the body). For short articles, they often don't but there are also conventions for the lede in philosophy articles here: WP:Manual of Style (philosophy)#Lead section. Actually, there are many good suggestions and guidelines from WP:WikiProject Philosophy you'll definitely want to check out. I noticed you made bold all instanced of four-dimensionalism but that's only done for the first occurrence. It should appear in the first sentence.
Inline citations with page numbers where appropriate (i.e., possible) are preferred because they're easier to WP:VERIFY. You can include page numbers using WP:Parenthetical referencing but styles shouldn't be mixed and an existing style shouldn't be altered without discussion. Most articles use numbered superscripts, and many use the WP:Citation templates. They're optional, but they're easy and they do help keep the references section consistent. Here are some examples, the part within curly braces is the template, and the part with the angle brackets is used for all (superscript) citations:
<ref name="Zelenak2009">{{cite journal |last=Zelenak |first=Lawrence |year=2009
|title=Tax Policy and Personal Identity Over Time |journal=Tax Law Review |volume=62 |number=3 |pages=33–75
|url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2811&context=faculty_scholarship&rct=j}}</ref>
<ref name="Robinson1985">{{cite journal |first=Denis |last=Robinson |year=1985
|title=Can Amoebae Divide Without Multiplying?
|journal=Australasian Journal of Philosophy |volume=63 |number=3
|doi=10.1080/00048408512341901 |pages=299–319}}</ref>
<ref name="Sider2001a">{{cite journal |first=Theodore |last=Sider |year=2001
|title=Occasions of Identity Andre Gallois |journal=British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
|volume=52 |number=2 |pages=401–405}}</ref>
<ref name="Sider2001b">{{cite journal |first=Theodore |last=Sider |year=2001
|title=Maximality and Intrinsic Properties
|journal=Philosophy and Phenomenological Research |volume=63 |number=2 |pages=357–364}}</ref>
<ref name="parfit1986reasons">{{cite book |first=Denis |last=Parfit |year=1986
|title=Reasons and Persons |series=Oxford scholarship online |publisher=Oxford University Press
|isbn=9780198249085 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SlgY93k936UC}}</ref>
<ref name="sep-repugnant-conclusion">{{cite encyclopedia |first=Gustaf |last=Arrhenius
|first2=Jesper |last2=Ryberg |first3=Torbjörn |last3=Tännsjö |editor=Edward N. Zalta |year=2010
|title=The Repugnant Conclusion |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
|edition=Fall 2010 |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/repugnant-conclusion/}}</ref>
<ref name="sep-identity-ethics">{{cite encyclopedia |first=David |last=Shoemaker
|editor=Edward N. Zalta |year=2008 |title=Personal Identity and Ethics
|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
|edition=Fall 2008 |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/identity-ethics/}}</ref>
<ref name="sep-identity-time">{{cite encyclopedia |first=Andre |last=Gallois
|editor=Edward N. Zalta |year=2011 |title=Identity Over Time
|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |edition=Spring 2011
|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/identity-time/}}</ref>
<ref name="sep-identity">{{cite encyclopedia |first=Harold |last=Noonan
|editor=Edward N. Zalta |year=2009 |title=Identity
|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
|edition=Winter 2009 |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/identity/}}</ref>
<ref name="sep-identity-personal">{{cite encyclopedia |first=Eric T. |last=Olson
|editor=Edward N. Zalta |year=2010 |title=Personal Identity
|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
|edition=Winter 2010 |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/identity-personal/}}</ref>
Finally, see WP:BRD. BofK was kind enough not revert at four-dimensionalism although it's not inappropriate to do so. I'll revert a second time and follow up with my concerns regarding style and content there at that article's talk page.—Machine Elf 173515:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reply
I really don't have the time to give this reply justice, but, as always, I'll do what I can: I am very well aware of the (limitations of) the Wiki system (I spend most of my time over at Wikispecies, where I have 200,000 edits, and I had to initially fight a certain amount of resistance in order to transform the site from "an amusement for bored people" into a serious player in global bioinformatics). Your latest reversion of four-dimensionalism is completely unjustified, so I have had no choice but to undo it. I was simply correcting a false/misleading lede, and adding an illustrative example. These things do not require consensus. If you or anybody else objects to my new lead, then the talk page is the place for you to express your concerns about it. To revert a good lede back to a bad one is totally counterproductive. I did try to make this version of the lede more concise and less "essay like" than my previous effort, but there are limits to how much this is possible, without collapsing back to a lede that effectively says nothing. There ought to be slightly more leeway with a lede, as the aim is to be an overall introduction to the topic, and strict quote and cite just doesn't work for this. The main thing is that the lede gives the reader a useful summary of what the topic is about. The old lead does not do this! It is misleading. You are not doing the reputation of WP any good at all by preventing the improvement of a misleading lede ... can't you see that?? Stho002 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, my lede is fully compliant with NPOV, i.e., I haven't taken sides on any controversial issues pertaining to the topic, but have merely explicated the options. The fact that it is not possible to do this without any element of interpretation is irrelevant to NPOV, or else much of Wikipedia is impossible... Stho002 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one last point: what I have added to four-dimensionalism is just a starting point, and I intend to improve the body of the article, with full references, if I can find the time (but currently I'm wasting too much time pointlessly arguing over the lede) Stho002 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Philosophy for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must not have hit save page… it looked like you already had the discussion well in hand so I worked on some of the POV problem in the article instead. Funny how some people react to the idea of a multiverse. Regarding your question above, I ran into a multiverse theory based on old school space-time causality diff. Sorry, I don't really know anything about it though.—Machine Elf 173511:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Their own derivative? It was meant in a good way. I thought the other fellow suggested using it as a section, (as opposed to replacing the lede). That seems like a good idea but if I've misinterpreted anything, my apologies. I've only been following along as best I could, tl:dr.—Machine Elf 173501:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete your addition of psyche. I simply moved it out of the first sentence. In introducing the concept, it only muddies matters to imply it's the same as psyche. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I try to fit everything in ed sums but sometimes it's a bit too terse. I meant to say that I disagree it implies they are the same. It says “related” and they are related…
I also disagree with moving it down below the New Testament, etc. because one, and only one, sentence in the body of the article asserts religious use. It makes no sense to mention such a clearly important and related concept as an achronological afterthought, (though I'm sure the late classical period could be added). It went out of it's way to deny any legitimate basis for comparison:“In classical usage it may be compared to but is distinguishable from [[Psyche (psychology)|psyche]] ({{polytonic|[[wikt:ψυχή|ψυχή]]}}), "soul."”
I know you, yourself, are the one who added the various philosophy sections that clearly demonstrate the points I'm making, so, it's a mystery to me why you want to mischaracterize it as primarily religious and (what?) unrelated.—Machine Elf 173516:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why did you put all the explanatory material on the connate pneuma of Aristotle in a footnote? The footnote is now longer than the section. Explaining this concept is a most welcome addition. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I included the quote in the reference because it supports the points I'm making. It also just so happens to be a good reference for the short section on Aristotle. I'm sure that section, (like the sentence concerning religious usage), will eventually be expanded.—Machine Elf 173516:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing: what I object to in your first sentence is the vague "is related to": in what way? Etymologically? In certain philosophies? It's a non-informative way to present the information. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "is related to" is much less vague and misleading than mere "comparisons". That they're related in many ways is made perfectly clear in the body of the article (if "breath of life" doesn't do it for you, not to mention "all the explanatory material" in its footnote)… It's a short lede for a short article/stub that does a fine job of explaining it in more depth… I'm sure you've read the article and the reference I provided, so I don't really know how to respond to bizarre questions like "Etymologically? In certain philosophies?". Etymologically??? Oh, in English? No. All the philosophies mentioned in the article, particularly Stoicism, and frankly, in no uncertain terms.
Hi. I added the see also link in reference to the idea of (apparent) double binds making decisions more difficult and thus commonly leading to procrastination (ie. in the example of issues involving one or more Catch-22). Thanks. ~AH1(discuss!)18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you had made a request to have {{citations missing}} updated. In order to get an administrator's attention to make the change, add {{editprotected}} along with your comments. (Already done.) Also, I think the template message is much better without the copyright phrase. Keep up your good work on behalf of users everywhere! Senator2029 | talk | contribs12:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a specific wikipedia policy behind your desire to keep the reference "explicit" as you called it on entropic gravity? I dont see any motivation for expressing the exact same information in a more cumbersome way. Clearly there have been other neutron interferometry experiments since 1975. Whatever parts of this analysis may be in dispute it is surely not the existence of interference patterns in 2-slit experiments. Nor should it be the rules of quantum mechanics and what they imply about interference vs entropy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isocliff (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I tried to say in the edit summary, is that form where it's sitting, it looks like a reference supporting the counter-counter argument. But it's not. It's just a reference from 1975 saying that neutron interferometry exists, and it doesn't necessarily support either the argument, the counter-argument, or the counter-counter argument. The WP:POV of the prior editor was clear enough, so I simply left it visible, but from what you're saying it sounds even less relevant than I might have imagined. Make sense? So, why not move it somewhere more neutral or remove it? That would be WP:V. Thanks.—Machine Elf 173505:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fear mongering
My bad accusing you of promoting fear with that initial posting of firmware stuff. I have no excuses. I you wanted to understand my mistake, I would point out that at first I didn't know where the firmware discussion came from, so I googled it, and it encountered a couple bloggers using it to freak out. But again, there was no good reason at all to let (what I considered to be) their bad faith taint my opinion regarding you adding the quote to the Wikipage. I apologize for the role that blunder played in making unavoidably difficult, contentious discussion even more difficult.-Tesseract2(talk)00:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are consistently taking the liberty of removing correct science that is verifiable through reference and literature.
This site is concerned with science and correctness only, not your interpretations.
Please provide reference and information that formally refutes the addition to this page, being that Wave functions are abstract as represented by their mathematics and inability to be measured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvallejo (talk • contribs) 04:15, 15 October 2011
Hi Nvallejo, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia. The clickable links that start with WP, like WP:BRD and WP:NPOV, are links to policies and guidelines that you should read as soon as you get a chance. As I said at Talk:Wave function#Clarifying abstract and real qualities, your contribution was moved to the talk page for discussion per WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss cycle). Nvallejo, the reasons you gave in your edit summaries, Reinstated correct science unjustly removed (do the science please don't promote theories), Reinstating correct science. (There has been no consultation here with the author of this revision. Let that be noted.), and You are conducting consistent unwarranted removal of correct scientific literature. were not appropriate. As I said, they should be based on WP policy and guidelines, not “your science”. I'm certainly not be a “Nobel laureate”, but I can tell you're not one either. Two other editors have reverted your contribution as well, and while I'm glad to see that you've eventually engaged on the article's talk page, please keep our policies on WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA (no personal attacks) in mind when communicating with other editors in the future. You are the one who has treated others disrespectfully here, and you have introduced yourself in very bad light with comments like: “I will not tolerate 'roaming patrols' on this site deleting at will subject matter that 'they deem' inappropriate.” I expect you address the WP:NPOV concerns respectfully and to comment on content, not other editors. Please consider yourself advised that must not to revert a fifth time, (see WP:3RR). Also, it would be wise not to avail yourself of the warning templates until you know what you're doing. Finally, please don't forget to sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes (like so ~~~~) ok? Thanks for editing, I hope you like it here and decide to stay.—Machine Elf 173515:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear, that yourself and others are experts at interpreting the “rules of the game” for your own end in what is again a blatant patrolling of these pages to make sure that nobody else alters information on a page that reflects ‘science’ opposing that which you ‘deem appropriate’. You do not own these pages and yet seem to have the ability to do exactly that.
No one could offer the ultimate initial insult of disrespect than to completely delete new information that a researcher has offered with immaculate reference. This is your site as well as mine so in the spirit of it, anybody with enough scientific prowess should be able to inform the public of that which is correct. To have it then altered by a friendly community engaged in debate is the next step, not to have it ignored because of self interest and bias.
So do not assume to lecture me by trying to ‘show me the rules’ of ‘your site’ by referring me to links that do not address the prime issue here which is ignorance and curvature of true science.
This matter could have been resolved immediately and quickly rather than the smart arse comments that I initially received by those mentioned ‘wiki police’ i.e. ‘Thanks, I reverted it, which will probably upset them’ as if they have absolute rule over the page/site.
Before you accuse me of disrespect, answer that allegation please, the evidence is right in front of anyone wishing to view it (Michael C. Pricetalk).
I realize that you're upset your “research” was moved to the article's talk page for discussion. I also realize that you genuinely believe you have the right to publish your work on WP because it is correct and proper and true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet, because no one seems to agree with you, what explanation could there be apart from conspiracy or foul play? I don't know, maybe all the self-righteous indignation is preventing you from reflecting on your own outrageous behavior? The editors here, myself included, have been extremely gracious considering your demands. Maybe if you took a break you'd be able to think more clearly? So far, no less than three people “could offer the ultimate initial insult of disrespect than to completely delete new information that a researcher has offered with immaculate reference.”
As you will recall, your original research was not “completely deleted”, it was moved to a talk page for discussion. I didn't want to hit you with too much at once, but as an advocate for the POV you're espousing, some of your explanations were either curiously wrong-headed or very awkwardly phrased, (probably both).
You only cite two sources; the only WP:Verifiable ones were for the direct quotations, (and one those was WP:SYN). Neither source supported your florid editorial. I had looked up the first one because I'm actually a fan of Max Born, (he's a marvelous writer). That failed WP:Verification for the following: “the particle’s position changes instance to instance probabilistically”. [sic] I'm not a scientist, so given the way you immodestly tout your superior prowess, I can only suppose the particles winking hither and thither must be great lulz.
Your other cite was merely for a quote which you took out of context. It was a highly theoretical paper that referred to photon wave functions as “PWF”s, (amid their zoo of such initialisms). Here is, pretty much, the shortest that quote you should have gone with, (emphasis added):
“We have found, as have others… that the PWF obeys a first-order equation of motion that is identical in form to the Maxwell equations (at least in free space). One should resist, however, interpreting this as evidence that the electric and magnetic fields for a single photon physically exist. We suggest that the PWF may be taken to be the fundamental object. In order for a quantity to ‘exist’ in the sense we are using, it should be experimentally measurable given only one copy of a physical system. A wave function for a single object represents the quantum state of that object, and is not measurable, even in principle… This contrasts with the case where one has many replicas of the object, allowing quantumstate tomography to reconstruct the common state…”
Such a bizarre choice… the authors go on to suggest the E/M fields are emergent properties from many photons. FWIW, you cited the other quote correctly and merely neglected the disclaimer:
“These comments should not be taken to imply that the wave functions have no physical interest. We shall see in this and the next sections that a wave function actually contains all the information which the uncertainty principle allows us to know about the associated particle.”
Don't come baiting me on my talk page and expect good faith after all the smack you've been talking. However, I don't mind disabusing you of your “immaculate” deception. Thanks for that!
The creation of a disambiguation page was specifically discussed in the move request, and Magna Mater does not purely mean Cybele. It was, for instance, also the title of Maia (Mythology), as is stated - with reference - in that article. Allens (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have Allens to thank for attempting to fix the band hijack. I'm aware that it's a title that would not exclusively refer to Cybele. That's something the editors of each individual article needed to decide and they were presumably satisfied with the redirect to Cybele. The problem is, Magna Mater cannot be changed to a dab page based on that particular non-discussion and the need to alter every link to it, is ample evidence.—Machine Elf 173516:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I did leave a number of Allen's changes intact but changing Magna Mater to a dab page is not OK with me and I do think Cybele qualifies as the WP:PRIMARY topic. That specific discussion could, of course, be raised now that the band thing has been cleared up.—Machine Elf 173516:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it, provided that Cybele has a link to a disambiguation page for the other meanings of Magna Mater - and if the other edits that I did that were not part of this are restored. I have other things to do; if someone else would like to fix this, that's fine. Otherwise, I'll be putting up things on talk pages once I have a chance. Allens (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allens, by “that were not part of this are restored”, I assume you mean Cynwolfe's histrionics. I tried to preserve all of your edits that weren't a direct result of the mistake. Whereas it's ok to link to a list, it's typically not ok to link to a dab (in article space, as you've pointed out). Perhaps a simple hat note at the top of Cybele regarding Magna Mater would address your concern in the interim.—Machine Elf 173500:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in regard to "that were not part of this" is meaning Women in Ancient Rome, which I have now restored (mostly addition of "citation needed" templates - which will be rather hard to object to, unless someone wants to just remove the statements in question entirely - with slight grammatical fixes). Haploidavey's (I believe) putting in the hatnote on Cybele has indeed addressed my concerns; thank you. (Sorry about the delay in this reply, but I decided that going off and cooling down a bit was recommended.) Allens (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could I suggest that you and your confrère Allens proceed more cautiously in mucking about with this? Those of us who write regularly on ancient Roman religion are aware of the problems with this title, which are unlikely to be sorted out through the proliferation of dabs and redirects. You are both causing more problems than you're solving. When I've linked to "Magna Mater," I've expected it to go to "Cybele" for now. But I agree with comments made elsewhere by Haploidavey that "Magna Mater" is a divine honorific that may refer primarily to Cybele, but can refer to other deities. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unless you're doing something informational to improve the situation. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Scientific realism article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I know this is not the right place to ask, but how about I do a manual archive of Talk:Scientific realism? If so, would you recommend removing (archiving) all sections, or should I keep the last section ("A couple of suggestions")? The technique of manual archiving has been used on other talk pages to help reduce unhelpful commentary (I didn't want to add yet another section there to float this idea). I'll watch here for any reply. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want the article to be applicable to those students in high school that may be wondering what these "conditional statements" are that they are learning. So far the article only covers the non-classical-logic side of strict conditionals. When I was in high school, the Wikipedia article confused me. I ended up believing a falsehood for over four and a half years! Namely, that the material conditional was the "conditional statement" I had learned about in high school geometry. Thanks to my own efforts and my own research, I now know that was wrong. I am trying to stop this from happening to other poor high school students that may be in the same boat as I. Please help me in these efforts. Hanlon1755 (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Materialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pluralism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. When you recently edited JScript, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DOM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. What follows is a close paraphrase.
The source says:
But physics itself has shown that not everything is matter in this sense; for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense. So it is tempting to use ‘physicalism’ to distance oneself from what seems a historically important but no longer scientifically relevant thesis of materialism, and related to this, to emphasize a connection to physics and the physical sciences.
The article says:
However, physics has shown that gravity, for example, is not made of matter in the traditional sense “‘an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist’… So it is tempting to use ‘physicalism’ to distance oneself from what seems a historically important but no longer scientifically relevant thesis of materialism, and related to this, to emphasize a connection to physics and the physical sciences.”
As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. So that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be revised to separate it further from its source. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".
Hi Machine Elf, I do not understand your question. Please remain civil. Also, do not revert edits without justification. I have fixed the problematic quote, but it still lacks an attribution in the text. By the way, quotes of fair length (about more than 40 words) which themselves contain quotes may call for more than quotation marks. Thanks --Chealer (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like it's civil to retaliate by posting a bogus accusation on my talk page and a banner across the top of an article I edited two month ago, and then:
despite realizing your mistake, which you obviously must… having “fixed” Antoni Barau's edit;
you're back here whining that it's a “problematic quote” because of two completely separate bullshit issues that you couldn't be bothered to fix while you were at it;
and yet, not only do you feel entitled to inflict your pedantry on me, inexplicably you revert your ridiculous “close paraphrasing” of a direct quote banner across the top of the article;
and with no apology whatsoever, you have the fucking nerve, like your shit don't stink, to pretend I have a question for you!?!
What kind of language should I use on my own talk page for a prissy attacker?
Believe me, you're the last one who's MOS advice I'd value on the “fair length” of some dirt you thought you dug up on me. It's 50 words, counting every a, it and or, but not more than a few hundred characters: “Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation…” Perhaps I should add "or 50 it's in the lead and would look like crap", shall I? Would that be necessary?
Apparently you're sore because MOS is clear on the issue of pink article text despite there being no policy against it? But where are my manners, you must want some lousy unsought advice in return: your favorite pink cn-span template is for multiple consecutive sentences. There's a less obtrusive version, BTW. After all, you don't feel compelled to draw attention to your every little capricious nit-pick, do you?
Thank you Machine Elf, but which accusation are you referring to? Also, which mistake are you referring to? Which "bullshit issues" are you referring to? Please see Wikipedia:Civility and remain civil. Which revert of “close paraphrasing” from me are you referring to? Your [pseudo-]question is unclear, but the question I was referring to was "Retaliation?". Please do not modify the guideline without discussion, the advice is equally valid for the lead. Thanks for the advice, but the cn-span template is not necessarily for multiple sentences. --Chealer (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? That's absolutely pathetic. You can't admit you've accused me of close paraphrasing of a direct quote? You have no idea what I'm talking about when it's plain as day, right in front of your eyes: lying is breach of Wikipedia:Civility. Stay off my talk page, the list is long enough. I feel sorry you.—Machine Elf 173500:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously... yes. I was not "accusing" you of "close paraphrasing of a direct quote". I was asking what "bogus accusation" you were referring to. I was pointing out that a text you contributed, which happens to include a direct quote, is closely paraphrased. --Chealer (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your lame attempt to edit the direct quote you sent, which is perfectly self-evident and I've told you to stay off my talk page asshole.—Machine Elf 173518:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your complaint at the 3RR noticeboard
Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Machine Elf 1735 reported by User:Chealer (Result: ) both of you seem to be going over the top rapidly. Though there is some logic to your position, you've engaged in personal attacks on your own talk page ('stay off my talk page asshole') and depending on which admin closes the report you are risking a block on those grounds. Your 3RR report is WP:TLDR and no matter how correct your thinking may be, reviewing admins are going to see two very stubborn people who are refusing to back down. There is still time for you to add a comment at the 3RR board offering to stop reverting and pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I'm not sure why I might run out of time before an admin closes against me, with no 3RR violation, and with no consideration given to the fact Chealer is harassing me. As for being potty-mouthed, that's good advice, although I've been called far worse and no one's lifted a finger to stop it (not just on a user talk page either). Still, WP is capricious like that. I will be less forthcoming, but the next time he tries to alter his original message, dispute resolution would just say user talk pages don't count… So I'll go with “anything I say can and will be used against me”.—Machine Elf 173505:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Epiphenomenalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Function (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey Machine, I think 2 of the 3 edits made it better. But "relatively infrequent" of a possible infinite number of universes is a lot of universes and the point was weakened w.r.t. "very few". The WAP suffices even if there is only one life-friendly universe among an infinite number. May I change that back without getting into an edit dispute? 71.169.182.235 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a whole in one—among an infinite number—nothing short of miraculous. I do see the rhetorical point, and people do seem to confuse the anthropic principle with the fine-tuned universe vis-à-vis the teleological argument. Go for it, I'm fine with "possibly infinite", something like "possibly almost infinite" would be too awkward. I forget, I think it was in the SciAm article that Tegmark said the most unlikely scenarios were still infinitely numerous (Plato could have told him that).—Machine Elf 173504:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My only point was that the oft-made argument that the WAP refutes a teleological argument actually works even if there is only one life-friendly universe among a very very large number of universes. "relatively infrequent" weakens that point. The WAP does not (in my opinion, and this opinion is not going into the article) refute teleology in the case of a single and sole Universe (not to say that teleology must be true in that case, just that an appeal to WAP or selection bias doesn't cut the mustard). Thanks for letting "very few" stick. 71.169.187.254 (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the teleological argument. It's an intuition due to the fine-tuned universe. But no take backs: The idea that one and only one viable universe out of an infinite number of loser-verses being all that the WAP needs… (to save us from God) makes it into some kind of unnatural anti-miracle. On the other horn, given a finite multiverse wherein some ridiculously far-fetched fine-tuning probability obtains, it became unequivocally ridiculous and far-fetched precisely because it is in no way sui generis, it's now quite neatly describable in terms of said probability. I don't know if that's what you're alluding to… but given X, X is necessarily possible. That doesn't include the fine-tuned part: it has nothing to say about what should give us the willies. Never mind the ridicule scientists otherwise ladle on a multiverse, that it's merely the naturalistic alternative is a very weak argument indeed.
Like I said, I see your point—because we're not bothering to explain it in detail—but a possibly infinite number of fine-tuned universes would obviously be much more convincing. Machine Elf 173507:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Luohan Ru Yi Quan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wuxing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I have to say that I'm rather confused by those problems - I'm also surprised by you assertions of WP:TENDENTIOUS. If this is the case, also the former version would have been biased as well... However, I've asked for assistance:
Ok, I brought (as you wished) the Einstein section back to its original state, though I added a split template. --D.H (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You explicitly revert me twice, asserting that Einstein's views on the aether are WP:UNDUE, unless they're in your article, apparently, and you're surprised I find that behavior tendentious? I see I was correct in assuming good faith in so far as you're unable to recognize your own POV. Unfortunately, that will be a problem if you also tendentiously revert... tangential, second-though addenda notwithstanding.—Machine Elf 173518:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained to you why WP:UNDUE applies. Einstein's new relativistic aether had no impact on the view of the Mainstream scientific community regarding the luminiferous aether, thus there is no reason to give it much space in the luminiferous aether article. But it of course deserves mention in an article called "Einstein's views on the aether" (based on sources that explicitly refer to this topic). It really surprises me that you cannot accept this. --D.H (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise! I've explained to you that's hogwash. "Einstein's views on the [luminiferous] aether" obviously belong in the luminiferous aether article, if anyone's do. The "Mainstream scientific community" doesn't really opine on the applicability of terms that they simply no longer fancy. And finally, your opinion of 'what everyone "knows" science textbooks contain' counts for zero, absent citations to the effect. Your sources explicitly refer to your article by name, do they? LOL, again, it really doesn't surprise me that you can't accept this.—Machine Elf 173518:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes very obvious, especially when the article is about the old mechanical luminiferous aether models, and Einstein himself mostly spoke about a gravitational aether having no state of motion. The classical luminiferous aether was only one of many aether theories, even though the most important one. Well yes, I will stay away from the keyboard, but it would be helpful when you comment (on the articles talk page) why you think that the new article isn't "neutral", or at least more non-neutral than the old version. (Well it's my own fault - I've included most of this Einstein stuff in the luminiferous aether article in the last two years. It seems that it was more appreciated by others than by myself.) --D.H (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't go far out of their way to observe such fine points of distinction between classical, mechanical, gravitational, (aka "relativistic"?) and let's not forget the properly "classical" aether (classical element). Yes, you've outdone yourself and it's appreciated. I've merely asked for it to be reviewed for neutrality, by someone other than us, for reasons given.
The phrase is "step away" not "stay away"... that may lose something in translation—the intent being "relax, give folks a chance to catch up".—Machine Elf 173519:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Machine Elf. I'm concerned about this edit. In it, you made an accusation that SmittysmithIII was a suspected sock. This is a serious accusation, and not one to be cast around lightly. Do you have any evidence of this, such as an active discussion at a noticeboard of which I'm unaware?
By the way, the content issues of the revert can be discussed on talk, but far less importantly, I'd also point out that WP:Citing sources is a guideline which primarily concerns the use of citations (over bare urls) generally. It's pretty common for editors to switch to harvnb or sfn when an article's citations create too much clutter. Neither template actually changes the way the citations themselves are presented; they simply shorten their presentation in the article content themselves. Maybe they are not appropriate here (I'd be happy to read and participate in a discussion on talk if you feel that way), but I'm not sure WP:CITEVAR applies to override WP:BOLD in this case, and I think insinuating it does is a misreading of the guideline and examples therein. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥03:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, actually that was User:Sacramentosam, a suspected sock of User:Mthoodhood/User:SmittysmithIII... When I confronted the user about it, he/she admitted on both user pages that they sometime sign in using those two accounts "just for fun". That's not a valid excuse, but I saw no reason to press the matter. I haven't yet confronted them regarding User:Sacramentosam... Although I said "suspected", I have no doubt about it whatsoever, and I'm assembling a request to have it investigated, so I take it there will be an active discussion about it shortly.
In that case, I simply added back the Creationism/ID content they had been surreptitiously removing... but unfortunately that approach doesn't correct the various manipulations they used to obscure their disassembly of undesired content, little by little: such as moving citations elsewhere:
Please notice that the user is not citing sources, those citations already exist: for the most part, the user is simply altering the existing citation format for the sake of it. That speaks directly to WP:CITEVAR.
In regard to "overriding" WP:BOLD, as it's been reverted, it is still incumbent on the user to discuss, and gain consensus...
Harvnb/sfn is one possible option, for example, to cope with multiple, partially varying citations to the same source... As seen in the article, optional cite templates in simple ref tags are by far the most common, both for one-off citations and multiple uniform cites, (using a name attribute rather than repeating the entire thing). As a matter of course, references are not routinely consolidated into the reflist...
Given the user's misleading edit summaries, whatever modest value they add by introducing additional cite templates is more than offset by the effort required to double check their work: generally, they rapidly post a large number of seemingly legitimate edits apropos their edit summaries, "above the fold". But every so often, they include a surreptitious edit "below the fold": individually, they might not even make sense, and sometimes they're hard to spot... but the cumulative effect achieves an ulterior motive, though not without collateral damage:
If what you're saying is true, then the correct step forward is to discuss the matter with the community (such as at ANI or RFCU). Reverting a user making productive edits on the basis that you feel strongly that he is a bad faith sock (and further accusing him of being a sock) is definitely not the right step forward, even if (especially if) you are correct. Please don't go around accusing editors of this, regardless of how you feel. Bring it to the appropriate venue. If you're right, then the matter needs to be addressed properly. — Jess· Δ♥14:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll comment further on what you mistakenly call "productive edits" on the article talk page. You should assume I have compelling evidence, not that I "feel strongly he is a bad faith sock", which is quite transparent, if you cared to look. I have no idea what you mean by "especially if" I'm correct. I have no intention of prosecuting the user, and it seems to me that neither ANI nor RFCU are appropriate venues, so I'll thank you to stop implying that "I'm going around accusing editors of this, regardless of how [I] feel" which is an obnoxious accusation. As I said, I'm in the process of writing a post to the appropriate venue, and I'll post it shortly. It would have been sooner if you weren't distracting me with inappropriate reverts, bad faith and worse advice.—Machine Elf 173514:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I should not assume you have evidence which you have not proposed. I should give you the opportunity to present such evidence, which I did very explicitly by asking for it here. If you have no intention of bringing the issue to the community, or presenting explicit evidence, then making accusations on the talk page is absolutely inappropriate. Even if you do bring the issue elsewhere, making accusations on an article now is premature, at very best. If you have a case for socking, then take it to SPI. If you have a case for disruption, then take it to ANI or RFCU. If you won't do that, and continue to make accusations intended to disrupt collaboration and poison the well, I'm going to have to take the issue somewhere myself. I don't want to do that. I have no idea whether your accusations are accurate, or whether the edits are ultimately helpful, and I'd be more than happy to discuss it in the correct venue, but making such accusations without providing diffs or evidence in the meantime is a violation of community standards and unhelpful in addressing issues to the article or with another editor. Please redact them on the article talk page while you're "in the process of writing a post to the appropriate venue". Thank you. — Jess· Δ♥17:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you are aware, I have asked about the issue on Mthoodhood's talk page, and posted on the Talk:Pseudoscience page. I'd ask again that you leave these issues off the article talk page, per the talk page guidelines, until you are able to bring it to the proper venue. We'll see what Mthoodhood has to say about these matters, which may better reveal how best to proceed with any issues. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥18:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, you don't need to assume anything. If you spent just a fraction of the time you've devoted to harassing me on looking at the evidence I showed you in context, as I explained it (rather than how you imagine it) it would be obvious to you that what I'm saying is true. It's undeniable, and you are the one making a much bigger deal out of it, but I'm sure you'll steadfastly defend the user's right "to do the wrong thing" without that fact being discussed in any relevant way. It goes without saying neither of you have any accountability concerns. No, only users who embarrass an admin have a care about that. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to present evidence, rather than dismissing it, deleting it, and then ignoring it altogether, but hello: twice I've told you that I was preparing a post as quickly as possible, no thanks to you, and you respond with "If you have no intention of bringing the issue to the community, or presenting explicit evidence, then making accusations on the talk page is absolutely inappropriate." This will come as shock, but just as I said I would, I requested a sock puppet investigation, (also no cause for alarm), at at the appropriate venue. SPI is neither you, nor is it my talk page... they don't investigate socks without wrong doing... but if you want to call it "disruption", that's your choice, not mine. I merely find it time consuming. Speaking of which, you find my "accusations are premature" whereas yours are a flaky golden brown and still fluffy inside? In reference to the relevant activity on the related list, I told editors which three accounts they might want to review: if it turns out to be some freakish copy cat that mimics the user's two admitted socks, would that be a case of modi operandi theft? Surely, I'm no more liable for recognizing the blisteringly obvious, than the user ever will be for perpetrating slightly more or slightly less wiki-no-no's than their confessed, red-handed socks have done. It would be pointless to take your obnoxious accusation/prediction that I'll "continue to make accusations intended to disrupt collaboration and poison the well" to ANI or RFCU, but when your day comes, I'll be there with bells on. Your pompous threat is far more appalling than the user's modest faith-based agenda. I can't stop you from taking the issue you're inventing "somewhere" yourself, apparently I'm twisting your arm... why am making you threaten me against your will? I'll stipulate that you haven't even bothered to get "some idea" of whether my accusations are accurate, or whether malformed html comments that hide extra content "are ultimately helpful", and that you'd be more than happy to insinuate yourself and that complete and willful ignorance into the correct, un-poisoned "well" but you nonetheless feel compelled, perhaps out of the aforementioned ignorance, having ignored the diffs, etc., to declare the meantime "a violation of community standards" presumably among menacing admins who simply refuse to acknowledge their victim's diffs, etc. Furthermore, it is unhelpful to your promotion of your personal format preferences in regard to the article, and um... something about another editor. Who shall remain nameless, I suppose. Therefore, you sentence me to "please" redact perfectly legitimate statements of fact, well supported by diffs, in addition to my well-grounded concerns, that have already met the moving goal-post of your prior criterion. Got it, "the pot", not "the kettle" is shopping it around needlessly to different venues. I must forego what I consider to be relevant and wait until the user decides to contact you, (screw SPI), at which time your self-imposed veil of ignorance will be lifted and it will be revealed how best to dictate we proceed. Peekaboo, I was able to get a terse yet thoughtful and diff-laden request posted prior to the first of these, your two most outrageous demands on my time yet. So, I 'spose that's nevermind then huh?—Machine Elf 173520:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you've grossly misunderstood my postings (which may have been my failure at expressing them), which has created a great deal of escalating drama. I do not disagree that there are concerns with the editor, and having looked at the evidence, I strongly endorse an SPI. However, reverting an editor on the basis of him being a sock prior to the SPI is premature. When I asked you here if you had evidence of the socking, you responded with diffs of other editors, not of Sacramentosam, of whom you were making accusations. Your diffs show possible disruption of Mthoodhood, but no socking by Sacramentosam. Consequently, continuing to make socking accusations on the talk page, and using it as a justification for reverting, is not appropriate. I want to reiterate again: I do not disagree with your assessment, nor with your filing at SPI (indeed, I even encouraged it!) I disagree only with prematurely accusing an editor without providing evidence and without filing at the appropriate venue. Doing so creates a problem for at least three reasons: 1) If you are incorrect, it poisons the well, and ends collaboration on the talk page, 2) if you are correct, choosing not to follow process and being overly aggressive will lead to further socking and disruption for an already disruptive user, 3) regardless of whether you are correct, allowing an atmosphere where users may accuse others of socking without providing evidence permits baseless accusations based on personal grudges. None of these are desirable. Please understand that my criticism comes from a hope for improvement and growth, not of arrogant bullying. We all have times where we could have expressed ourselves better (perhaps I could have expressed my criticism better as well; I've been very busy lately and may have been short.) I have appreciated your work on other articles in the past, and am not critical of your editing. But, with that all said, I very strongly stand by my statement that accusing editors of socking prior to filing an SPI (and particularly without providing supporting diffs) is not helpful. This violates our community standards and is strongly frowned upon (even sanctionable) at more formal noticeboards. You've filed an SPI case now, which is good, since now this issue can be addressed appropriately. Thank you for that. I hope this clarifies the issue and settles the matter. All the best, — Jess· Δ♥03:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, we seem to be wrapping it up. I'll just correct a few points for posterity. I did not "revert an editor on the basis of his being a sock...", I've reverted none of the edits made via User:Sacramentosam. The observable fact that this too was a sock, really had nothing to do with why I reverted. I reverted because 1) the user did not have consensus per WP:CITEVAR, which I had previously brought to their attention, and 2) I know how time-consuming it is to discover which edits have inappropriate payloads, and 3) that teasing out the collateral damage becomes non-trivial (the pseudoscience list article being a reasonable crystal ball for the pseudoscience article proper). I mentioned it 1) because last time, it simply prompted the user to admit it and 2) so people would know where to look in the pseudoscience list—in retrospect, TMI. You didn't ask me for evidence, you asked if I had evidence, such as a noticeboard discussion. And sure enough, I was actively engaged in requesting an investigation which would precipitate just such a discussion. I am perfectly capable of reading English, but no doubt I "grossly" failed to read your mind, which might well have said something like 'ok, I'll leave you to it then... probably best next time not to put the cart before the horse though, right?' Right. It should go without saying that allegedly "strong feelings" would not comprise the substance of a request for an investigation, (after all, your impression of me hadn't been that I'm incompetent...) I get it, thank you for informing me everything else was "far less important" than a suspicious sock faux pas (so to speak). Had I ignored the eggshells, and trotted out further "accusations/evidence" directed at Sam, regardless of diffs, you certainly would have had something 'much more important' to relentlessly denounce on the talk page. But the user didn't make very many edits using Sam, like I said, had you cared to look, you should have seen they were gaming the system in exactly the same way as the 'much less delicate' Smitty diffs: the account that was unequivocally gaming the article at hand, who's edits I had reverted. But you acknowledged no problems with any of it until a third party stepped in... and from what you were saying on the article talk page, one would have thought it was ALL about Sam... Had you gotten your facts straight about which sock I "accused", it would not have required that brief mention. So, what's your crystal ball for 1, 2 and 3? Self-fulfilling prophecy? I anticipate the criticism will stop as it's failed to serve the stated purpose. There's no call to repeat yourself over and over again, and I owed you nothing: the evidence you got was a courtesy. You don't need to thank me for doing exactly what I said I was doing, but I'll thank you for not protracting this with a response.—Machine Elf 173523:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And just to make sure I'm entirely clear, I apologize if I worded my initial request to you poorly. I was attempting to make clear that there was a problem, and if I conveyed that in a way that was not received well, I'll do my best to communicate it better in the future. This conversation has escalated very quickly, which is atypical and unfortunate, and very likely detrimental to handling the issues at hand. All the best, — Jess· Δ♥03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jess is right about being careful about sock accusations. I've been reverting this editor for copyvio violations while accumulating evidence for an SPI which I was going to bring. As you've already done that I've added my evidence, which shows that this goes a lot deeper than you realise as all 3 editors are socks, none of them are the puppetmaster. I believe the case has been proven with my evidence but we need a CU check for other socks. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, I had no doubt whatsoever Sam was a sock, (that has nothing to do with why I reverted the edits, btw). I just figured it might prompt the user to confess, as it had done before.—Machine Elf 173512:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the editor formerly known as 24.45.42.125, but I've given up on being an "anonymous" IP and bitten the bullet. Apparently, "anonymous" editors are widely assumed to be vandals or hooligans or something, and there's a special level of page protection made just to keep them from participating. On the other hand, I was told that creating an account just makes me one of the players of the game and renders me a larger, more visible target. We'll see. I won't be surprised if I get blocked despite creating an account. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the words Vida Boheme: "I want you to believe in yourself, imagine good things and moisturize, I cannot stress this enough" dehydration is such a bitch.—Machine Elf 173507:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Truer words have rarely been spoken. Dehydration is the bane of Hollywood. One actor after another has collapsed on set or failed to show up due to this dry scourge. If only we could find a cure! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jeraphine Gryphon00:46, 22 July 2012(are you new here? this is an encyclopedia. this line is unsourced, self-referential ("see..."), inappropriate tone ("we"), and totally woo woo ("possible that incorporeal realm has powers"))
Look, you made the completely unnecessary comment about my wiki-retirement like it was relevant to anything at all, so I thought I'd give you a reason to drop that subject. I have not even once before mentioned that thing on Wikipedia before, please tell me more about "dramz" and how that wee comment had anything to do with WP:LEGAL. With "encourage" I meant don't try to encourage me to "retire", since that would be really dickish of you. I'd really like to drop this subject now and if you agree we could go and refactor our own comments and remove the off-topic parts. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk)09:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said hello by asking if I was new, I reciprocated in kind. Unfortunately, you didn't just say 'drop that subject', you said: 'And I'm "retiring" on and off because I'm suicidal, don't try to encourage me.' TMI. I haven't tried to encourage you, and I'm offended by the repeated protest that I might encourage you to either "retire" or kill yourself. That's all I have to say about it. I have no objection to the entire exchange here and at Talk:Incorporeality#woo woo being oversighted.—Machine Elf 173510:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry to bother you with this but can you take care of this oversighting request? I'm sorry I replied to you with that and I regret bringing it up here, and your hostility and all of this is really distressing; I'm gonna go now, okay, I don't want to see or talk about this stuff anymore. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk)11:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not treating it as a prophecy, just an admission of bad faith and threat to abuse the system. That's why I find it amusing as much as anything else.
The "told you" relates to my earlier expectation that creating an account would just create a larger target for people who would prefer that I not edit. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, egregious template warnings would certainly be more effective against an IP, or a static IP anyway. Shy of 3RR or pissing off an admin, there's really nothing so heinous that it won't be ignored, so long as some semblance of civility is maintained. Really, it's the admins who have the big targets, poor dears, and they just get desensitized to all the drama because there's not a whole lot they could do to stop it if they tried.—Machine Elf 173519:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, I agree: IP's are treated worse, which is why I took the plunge. As for the drama, I seem to be a magnet for it. I am being treated rather uncivilly on a routine basis, but I'm doing my best to focus on the articles, not the people. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It's getting worse. I've taken a few content disputes to Dispute Resolution and there's a counterproductive effort to spin my disagreement over content into a behavior issue. In other words, it's all my fault that I don't agree with changes that violate Wikipedia policy.
Ironically, their behavior has been atrocious, including incivility, edit-warring and false statements that may well be intentional, but I've tried to focus on content, with mixed results. At this point, I fully expect that the next step will be to take me to the kangaroo court. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insufferably sanctimonious... I'll take polemic opponents any day, at least they can mount an argument. I can honestly say the single most helpful essay on wikipedia, in my experience, was some old revision of WP:Don't-give-a-fuckism, e.g., “Some variations of the phrase include "Don't give a rat's ass", "Don't care a shit for", and anything else that is generally low on the importance scale in that specific region. If you were to have a piece of feces, and someone were to ask you for it to aid them in what you do not care for - or "Do not give a fuck for" - you wouldn't even do so, not in spite of them, but because you would prefer to keep the feces rather than "give a shit".”—Machine Elf 173503:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could disagree, but I can't. DRN is a sham; they resolve the dispute by counting heads and endorsing the local majority, regardless of the rules. ANI is a lynch mob; they decide if you're guilty based on whether they like you, then find excuses to allow punishing you, regardless of the rules. Wikipedia is a failure: I am by no means the first editor to walk in, try to fix things, and get rewarded only with harm.
I could stick around and fight, fight, fight until I lose, lose, lose, but I suspect they'd get more joy out of it than I would. One of my many failings is that I have no patience for debate in which I win but my opponent is either too incompetent or dishonest to admit it.
You're welcome to terrorize the wiki... ride off into the sunset... don't worry about me, it should have been water off a duck's collective back.
I had never tried DRN before, so you turned me on to that... I'm quite pleasantly surprised anyone even volunteered to wade through all the TL;DR, and they've actually been very helpful. Politics destroys everything it touches.—Machine Elf 173506:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Machine Elf, I've made a reply to your thread at DRN. (The ball's kinda in Hypnosifl's court atm, but I'd welcome any comments you have on my grasp of the situation or anything else really). Just wanted to be sure you didn't miss it; thanks! Writ Keeper⚇♔00:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
“Oh, Mister Game Warden, I hope you can help me. I've been told I can shoot wabbits and goats and pigeons and mongooses and dirty skunks and ducks. Could you tell me what season it weawwy is?”—ME 20:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)~
Undid revision 511008081 by Rectipaedia stop WP:EDITWARING, see WP:BRD: you have an outstanding RfC questioning the relevance of Hempel's raven whereas there's no question yours lacks any such relevanceI'm going to respond inline because I can't be bothered with your lies and nonsense.
You quote BRD. I did not quote BRD. Here's the thing though. R did discuss. The outstanding RfC has not attracted a comment in about a week. LOL, unless I missed it, the RfC has not attracted any comments, ever. Funny how you change your tune... R believes the link is not at all relevant, and you and I both agree that's not true. The RfC quite simply asks whether or not the link is relevant and I've added a citation to that effect.
What has been definitively established by the talk page discussion is a clear 2:1 split, where the only single opposer to R's version is you personally. You're deluded. I'll note that once again you go out of your way to try and make this sound personal.
I think we could debate whether that constitutes a consensus or not. LOL. FWIW, I've tried to clarify your position (and been unsuccessful), and have inquired for paths that may lead to compromise (but you have flatly indicated refusal to compromise, for example what you have made clear is that no depth of coverage of the paradox elsewhere on the page will satisfy you with using a different example in a specific sentence explaining something that is not directly related to, and in fact is important to differentiate from, that paradox). I said no such thing. Much like your pal, R, I won't waste my time repeating myself in response to pointless questioning. I'm not surprised you leap to absurd conclusions based on nothing but your own battlefield tactic. The fact of the matter is, there's no "separate paragraph". I'm not interested in pretending the article in your mind is the one on WP but you can knock me over with a feather if you'd actually start contributing to the article. I don't have time to write that just now, but even if I did, I find your bizarre justifications far-fetched. You mistakenly replacing a perfectly relevant example with a patently irrelevant one, deal with it. I'll say this for R, though mistaken, at least he or she coherently believes it's not relevant... You, on the other hand, have certainly failed to provide a plausible reason, much less a convincing reason. Now, you seem to be wikilawyering quite a bit (much more than you appear interested in discussing), and indeed I guess we could employ such kinds of bureaucratic channels to have an admin resolve the issue. Nonsense, you're habit of confession via accusation is pathetic. Stop putting words in my mouth. But like you say, BRD means that having gone through the discuss part of the cycle R is correct to boldly edit the article. You mean like you say... don't lie.
Which brings us to revert. You did not contribute anything further to the discussion, you just immediately reverted the change. Don't lie, I contributed to the discussion and it's not incumbent on me to justify those ridiculous antics. (R had not edited the article in about a week, whereas your revert occured within hours.) STF what? And during this action you had the tenacity to accuse someone else of being the one who is currently edit warring. I'm not going to repeat myself, or you, but don't expect me to be civil about your ludacris two-faced attacks.
You know what tendentious editing is. It's tiresome, and stalls further improvement to the article. Like you've contributed to the article... I supported you earlier when I thought R's behaviour was unconstructive, so I hope you won't take personally my objection to how you are behaving now. I've already told you in no uncertain terms that I have no use for your "personal" advice tactics. I'm hoping that by pointing this out, you'll either self-revert, suggest a course of compromise, or present a clearer (and more persuasive) argument for your position. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Hilarious. Stop wasting my time.—Machine Elf 173508:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mind-brain problem: my constant reversions without explanation
MachineElf: Your recent reversion without explanation of a rearrangement of the already existing material in Mind–body problem leaves me baffled. Why remove the headers that break up the article into logical sub-sections?
And why reintroduce the Descartes template in this article that does no more than mention his name?
Do you really believe with all the Talk-page objections to this article going back over an extended period predating my attempts just now, that this article can't be improved, and that these changes I have suggested would not help to do that?
For instance, I provided on the Talk page examples of other lead sentences that define their topic:
"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior."
"In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined."
and suggested as a parallel the leading sentence:
"The mind-body problem is the scientific and philosophical problem of relating the mind to the body."
Machine Elf: The talk page addition you made here (Revision as of 20:32, 3 October 2012) attacks the above leading sentence as "incompetently scientistic OR" and that is it, not really helpful. Your previous Talk page addition made here (Revision as of 02:31, 3 October 2012) predates the reorganization described on the Talk page, and is simply an earlier complaint that you could not find the relevance of sources cited in proposed section on Dualism, a matter I rectified by providing quotations from these sources.
Nowhere have you suggested why your recent reversion was made, or what objections you have to breaking the material in Mind-body problem into sub-sections with the appropriate headers.
Brews ohare, you should read it in the context of the rejected Free will changes that you're attempting to support by making changes to Mind-body problem. Pretend I haven't responded it if you want, but I'll thank you to keep the discussion on the talk page.—Machine Elf 173519:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Retrocausality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonlocality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I suppose I shouldn't have moved the content of that category before proposing the deletion. Had I not, it would have been more clear. The "metaphysical cosmology" category contained all the esoterism and occult stuff. Metaphysicians such as philosophers of time, and philosophers of physics study the same subject matter as the astronomers, and physicists, so their scholarship belongs under "physical cosmology." Please don't ruin the good name of legitimate philosophers by causing them to be lumped into the occult stuff. Greg Bard (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Action at a distance (physics), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mechanism and Nonlocality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I've been thinking about the wording on the RfC you've started, and have to say that I find it a bit prejuducial, to the point where it will probably skunk the RfC. The question you ask is irrelevant anyway, since you asked whether a criticism section would be out of place, when you probably meant to ask whether the present criticism section should be retained. An answer to the former has no bearing on the latter. I suggest scrapping the RfC and restarting it with wording to everyone's satisfaction after discussion on the talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you don't intend to abide by it? Your irrationality is astonishing, I suggest you hold your horses... these aren't pseudoscientific crackpots you can rubbish tout court.—Machine Elf 173520:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I thought that's what you meant as it was the only paragraph that implied science is subjective. Sorry, I don't see what comparison you mean to draw between the two.—Machine Elf 173505:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the section (not referring to the short subsection on luck) is about Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, etc and relativist positions in general. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it a "list", but it's giving far too much weight to them, and no mention of topics you'd expect to find like falsification, demarcation, induction, etc. Some quotes (to point out that there are other paragraphs): all observation is dependent on the conceptual framework of the observer; no theory is recognized to be testable by any quantitative tests that it has not already passed; deny that science is genuinely a methodological process; etc. The comparison I was trying to draw was in the extent of the topics covered and the relative emphasis on each. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific method#Philosophy and sociology of science: It is a very short section with very short paragraphs, hardly more than a sentence or two. It would be difficult to give Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend "far too much weight" in Philosophy and Sociology of Science, but while incomplete itself, the missing topics you mention, that you'd expect to find there, can in fact be found integrated into other parts of the article. Putting the matter in perspective, the weight given to Peirce in the Pragmatic Model subsection of Models of Scientific Inquiry is by far the most apparent candidate for undue, although you may well consider him more felicitous. You might want to reflect on how the pre-theoretic notion you're referring to as "relativist positions in general" differs from your own... I see how one could read 'subjectivism' into those brief remarks about their positions, but not in a literal sense and not even wrong, really... If you find that troubling (and perhaps you don't, but if you do) you may not have noticed the claims being made in Wikipedia's voice elsewhere in the article, for example in the Evaluation and Improvement subsection of Elements of the Scientific Method:
Failure to develop an interesting hypothesis may lead a scientist to re-define the subject under consideration. Failure of a hypothesis to produce interesting and testable predictions may lead to reconsideration of the hypothesis or of the definition of the subject. Failure of an experiment to produce interesting results may lead a scientist to reconsider the experimental method, the hypothesis, or the definition of the subject.
I agree with most of what you said - including that the issue is one of the minor ones. Perhaps I was mistaken - I'll think about it. I'm currently doing a rewrite of most of the article, but I haven't made much progress in the last few months - that "definitions" statement is one of the worst offenders, and I agree about the Pierce discussion as well although I had planned to leave that part alone in my first rewrite (there's an editor who I think would object). Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Peirce shouldn't be shortened so much as the others could be lengthened, just so as not to be quite so dwarfed. I don't mean to imply it's in any way obvious how those three distinguish themselves in terms of relativism, btw. Depending on who's cashing it out, it comes down to a need to make value calls—awkward for even a dime-store objective-subjective dichotomy—never mind the erstwhile aspirations of sociologists when circumlocutions are built right into the latest physicists. More the multiply realizable variety though; not the puppies go to heaven if you want sort of relativism... even at Feyerabend's most Wiccanesque.—Machine Elf 173513:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately your arguments to continue deleting this section are unfounded and non-scientific. This section represent a significant doctoral contribution published in a Canadian physics journal. If you have argument against to what was published I advice you to communicate with the author of the publication and express your opinion. On the contrary, if you do not have the knowledge to present any contradictory scientific argumentation and rather do not like the editing, I advice you to read the entire publication and contribute professionally fixing the text. I have communicated to the administration of Wikipedia about your harsh behavior; they have communicated that you have up to 3 times to delete the information in the fashion that you have chosen and that it will be considered bad behavior and vandalism. Sir-Restriction (talk)
^James, Marianne. "Art Crime."Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 170. Australian Institute of Criminology. October 2000. Retrieved January 3, 2010.
FIXED: Numbers misread as dates (see: examples) and equal signs encoded with {{=}}. Instead, vertical bars are encoded with {{!}}.—Machine Elf 1735 22:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Glossaries's talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
