Jump to content

User talk:Adolphitus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Adolphitus, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

[edit]

Information icon Hello! I'm Bilby. Your recent edit(s) to the page Argument from authority appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bilby (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adophitus. I see that you have been repeatedly editing the article Argument from authority to insist that such arguments are always fallacies. Up to now, the article has stated that this approach is considered a fallacy by some people and as a sometimes-acceptable approach by other people. To make a drastic change in this longstanding content, by insisting it is always a fallacy, requires strong justification. I have blocked the article for two days to allow you and the other editor to work out your differences on the article's talk page. I see that you are a brand new editor here; you need to understand that what is said on Wikipedia must be supported by Reliable sources. Yes, in effect we justify our content by appealing to experts! -- MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. I just hope people realise Wikipedia is not reliable in logics. I think both POV's should be included even though I'm completely certain of why it IS always a fallacy. I think the article should focus more on quotes and reasoning than in "source bombing". More sources don't make you more correct. Specially if those sources themselves admit that it has been long described as a fallacy for most of history (or just say the hot take "some people listed it as valid", while giving no proof at all). Yes appealing to authorithy might be a good inductive method ("authorities are generally right so they must be right this time"), but that doesn't make it valid as a deduction and therefore the conclusions are falsifiable, unlike with proper non fallacious deductions, wich are logically proven to be pure truth.
I think giving examples and explanations is a lot more important in this artile than sources, even though they won't hurt, they are not the priority when talkign about commen knowledge. That's why articles about math rarely provide sources for most claims, or just give one. Because it's logic.... and it proves itself. Adolphitus (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Philosophy Barnstar

[edit]
The Philosophy Barnstar
To recognize your dedication and contributions on the Appeal to Authority page. Keep fighting the good fight there! AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you my friend. I think it's important to fight against the 1984-like manipullation of phylosophy and language before people are left with no tools for defending truth. Adolphitus (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mind fighting POV-pushing once again?

[edit]

Looks like he's back at POV-pushing over at argument from authority. Wanna chime in over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Argument_from_authority? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is right in this one. You are restoring a much worse and more incomplete version of the article. You can add "sources which disagree with the view that "it is a practical and sound way of obtaining knowledge" " if you wish but please dont go back to that other crappy version. Adolphitus (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from Authority

[edit]

Hi Adolphitus. There's currently a discussion on Argument from Authority that is relevent to you, given that it is about reverting the changes that you made to the article previously to now focus on the inductive version of the argument. Accordingly, I thought it may be of interest to you. - Bilby (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adolphitus&oldid=1193655627"