Talk:John Cook Wilson

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

InterestGather, in this edit you reverted a set of edits by somebody else. But you don't seem to have explained your reason for doing so. Why was it? -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I have gone over this on the original editor's talk page. It was an overstep based on small edits that develop upon general issues with the article lacking Inline Citations on information that may be challenged. I did not intend to revert the entire set of edits and this has been undone fortunately.

Thank you ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both of you InterestGather and Hoary for your calm interventions, but you are not alone here and I am, as of Monday 23, basically completely discouraged from any further action on this entry. MatMar555 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced content

"Cook Wilson made numerous small contributions to the study of Ancient Philosophy, but he is mainly remembered today for two contributions to Plato studies. The first is in his paper 'On the Platonist Doctrine of the ἀσύμβλητοι ἀριθμοί' (1904), where he argued against Aristotle’s claim in Met. A 6 987b14–17 that Plato thought that mathematical objects occupy an intermediate position between sensible things and Ideas. He also argued that, universals being 'one' in contrast with the 'many' to which they correspond, Plato's doctrine was that could be only one 'number One', one 'number Two', etc., that these 'Idea numbers' form a series ordered by a relation of 'before and after', but that they are 'unaddible' - no arithmetical operation can be applied to them. Adopting this as the right view of Plato on numbers led him to preposterous criticisms of the definitions of natural numbers by Russell and of irrationals by Dedekind, but his interpretation of Plato found supporters, most notably Harold F. Cherniss and Reginald Allen. Cook Wilson’s second contribution is the in 'On the Geometrical Problem in Plato’s Meno, 86e sqq.' (1903), on the geometrical illustration of Meno 86e–87b, showing that Plato did not try to solve to the problem of the inscription of an area as a triangle within a circle but tried, instead, to determine the possibility of its solution. This view has had numerous defenders since, including Thomas Heath, A. S. L. Farquharson, and Wilbur Knorr."

Please give the sources for this content and then it can be added back to the article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

For some reason I was not warned by email about this. Still I will not give the sources, I am happy this content taken out. It was left without sources because of interruptions by you and another editor, that led to my never being able to reference it. (This has been explained many time to you but Theroadislong seem not to want to understand it.) Now, agressive behaviour towards me (continuing below), including threats to ban me by Theroadislong that have never been acknowledged as problematic or rescinded, lead me to withdraw completely. Theroadislong has been referencing other parts of the entry and should be able to continue on his own if he wishes this content to be included. InterestGather and Hoary please take note of my wish to withdraw. MatMar555 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Subject expert

Subject expert User:MatMar555 has raged on his user page “I see what you have done to the entry, substituting yourself as me in putting as best you can some footnotes/references to repair all the mess caused by editorial interventions. I guess that this is what you call "collaboration", even using my own work (that you visibly have not read), while you are busy trying to deny any untoward actions towards me. So good luck with the missing citations, it would have taken me 2 minutes, and with the lame almost totally empty sections that follow. The entry still looks like a shit job. I think that this is about all for me here.”.... user is free to make suggestions for improvements here, but continued personal attacks are really not helpful. 00:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I am very glad that the above was taken out of that stellar entry on John Cook Wilson. I am so upset about Theroadislong's behaviour that I do not wish to have anything to do with this entry until Theroadislong stops interfering, including stopping his threats to ban me from editing on wikipedia, in itself a reason to do nothing since at the first occasion I might be banned fairly or not. By the way, the entry may look bad as it is, if Theroadislong does not see this, I can't do anything, I have given ample evidence of this elsewhere, that he has refused to engage with and he clearly prefers to attack me than simply calmly and kindly invite met to improve it. Furthermore, it is the entry that I described above as a "shit job", not his own work. It is an obvious misreading to read me as insulting him here. I hope that this settles the matter and that there will be no more agressive messages here and elsewhere from this "editor". MatMar555 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have never threatened to have you banned? I am an editor just like you trying to improve the article and have added at least 10 further sources to that effect. I have left you no aggressive messages either. You do not have any right to stop me or any other editors from editing here. Calmly and kindly inviting you to improve it, is exactly what I have done. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"I am an editor just like you". No, I am not an "editor like you, with the power to ban people that do not act as please you, and cannot disagree with your decisions thereof. You have threatened to ban me indeed, albeit not on this page but on the Teahouse" "Blanking content as you did here [1] is likely to lead to a block, please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)" How could you ever deny this? And you have *never* ever "calmly and kindly invit[ed me] to improve it", it very sad that you lie about this too, there are traces in numerous places of your behaviour towards me, including your threat just quoted, under which I was to work further on the entry, having to respect your whims or else. I am extremely glad, however, that you have "added at least 10 further sources" to improve the entry, please be my guest and carry on with this important collaborative task alone, without me, as it seems that you could definitely do a sparkling job fixing the entry. I am feeling, therefore, the entry is in safe capable knowledgeable and collaborative hands, I am extremely glad for the work you are doing to improve the visibility of John Cook Wilson and his philosophical ideas, you might even become a qualified philosopher in the process. Repeating myself here, I wish, however, not to be involved with this entry or any other entry in Wikipedia in fear of bumping into you again. I have asked you repeatedly here and elsewhere to leave me alone, to stop writing to me; would you at least respect this and kindly stop, so that your energy should be entirely focused on improving this entry in "collaboration" with whoever else joins you in the future? Just try an visualise that I am not here anymore. Leaving as I do, one last piece of advice or a wish if you like: given that I am so troublesome but the state of the entry prior to my foolish endeavour to improve it seems to have left you all in here that are overseeing content and format happy, I would suggest that, if at all possible, you revert the entry to its state prior to my interventions last Friday. That way, all problems would be solved, it would merely suffice that you keep the references you added so competently. MatMar555 (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that I have been insultingly tagged above as possibly authoring modifications that would constitute "conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view". It is easy to guess that it was you who did this, treating me in an hostile fashion although I tried to explain to you many times that should you have had the patience to see the final result you would have seen that this was not my intention (you derived your suspicion from a misunderstanding that I tried in vain to correct), and you who had the guts afterwards to reference my own work - vague references to a 40 pages long entry you have not read where this could fill in the need for reference - *and* to ask me to put references on one of my passages (the one above) so that it could be put back by you in the entry. This sort of hostile and insulting behaviour is exactly what I complained above, and as such the most valid reason of all NEVER to do anything to improve this entry. Now twill you get this: I am out of here, I don't want anything to do with you or this entry, so please do not answer me, let it go. MatMar555 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The ferocity of personal attacks here mean I will not be comfortable contributing further to this article. Theroadislong (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

How sad, since you contributed so competently, and for seemingly no valid reason, I do not wish to contribute. MatMar555 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)