User talk:Philocentric
Welcome
[edit]  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
And here are several pages on what to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which are produced by clicking on the
This welcome message was sent by MBisanz at 18:43, February 16, 2010 (UTC) |
Your User Page
[edit]Check your user page for some well-deserved wiki-love. Piratejosh85 (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- That was awful sweet of you. I have yet to explore the social aspect of wikipedia. Cheers. --Philocentric (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
July 2014
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Naturalism (philosophy) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Machine Elf 1735 14:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Methodological naturalism
[edit]Thanks for posting the link to your new draft on my talk page, but I have not really been following the recent changes to this and it is of only marginal interest to me, best Peter morrell 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me, but let me think a little more about this matter. The articles about philosophy in wikipedia are not particularly good, perhaps reflecting the general vagueness and ambiguity one often finds in the philosophical discourse. For example in the wikipedia article about naturalism one reads that “Some philosophers equate naturalism with materialism” – but even though there are philosophers who believe in materialism (and hence also in naturalism) the don’t “equate” the one with the other. In the same paragraph one reads “Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism” – which is nonsense. It links to an article by philosopher Paul Kurtz, but, first, that article nowhere says that “metaphysical naturalism is the absolute belief in naturalism”, and secondly says some nonsensical things itself, for example that agnostics “reject the existence of the soul”, when what characterizes agnosticism is not to reject such claims but neither to accept them.
Anyway, wikipedia needs a good article about methodological naturalism. Perhaps we should find high quality sources to anchor the main ideas. Dianelos (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
EL spam
[edit]Please stop linking to that blog everywhere, it's called spamming. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
[edit]
Hello, I'm Jeraphine Gryphon. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Hasty generalization, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
...that, and circa 60 other articles. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Philosophic burden of proof. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Jim1138 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Materialscientist (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Relevant: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/logfall.wordpress.com. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Philocentric (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I found I could no longer edit, visited my userpage, and found I was accused of spamming. Both I and my critical thinking students find the site in question (http://logfall.wordpress.com) useful, balanced and more than relevant to most of the Wikipedia articles that I posted specific links to. The Wikipedia articles were mostly specific logical fallacies that mapped directly to the links I included in the External Links sections. In most cases there are already 2 or 3 other logical fallacies sites among the External Links. I was adding one more. I don't want to think this claim of "spam" was promoted by one of the other sites, but I don't know of any other reason why the site I linked to is being singled out. Feel free to look at the site, and the links that were made. I read carefully the page on External Links before I started posting my links. If I missed some requirement for External Links, I would like to know what that is. Thanks.
Decline reason:
How about this part of the section on links that should be avoided: "11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." I couldn't find any authorship information for that blog, and even if it had that, adding it to dozens of articles, relevant or no, would likely still be considered spam. I rather doubt you can explain how a website on logical fallacies improves our readers' understanding of a game. Huon (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
That's a part of the problem, that you ignored the warnings completely and continued inserting links. At first I was sure you would stop after being warned, so I didn't report you then, even though you had inserted over 60 links - new editors would get blocked for that kind of thing without warning. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"I don't want to think this claim of "spam" was promoted by one of the other sites" -- I have absolutely nothing to do with any website. One of the articles you edited was on my watchlist, that's how I found you. The problem is that you're adding links to a wordpress blog on a massive scale.
Wikipedia:Spam#Inclusion_of_one_spam_link_is_not_a_reason_to_include_another: "Many times users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam have been added to the article and not yet removed. The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another." — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Why are you calling those any of those sites "spam"? The content is directly relevant. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) Philocentric (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, if any editor is posting a lot of links to a particular site, we regard it as spamming. This has applied to some of the world's top museums, galleries and so on, some of whom got quite indignant until they understood.. Also, blogspot and wordpress sites are not regarded as truly reliable independent sources. And apart from this, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Often, there are more links available than we need. (Sometimes, there are too few...) Jeraphine found you through a watchlist - I have one myself as do almost all regular editors. (Amongst about three thousand other pages, I have a Scottish bus shelter and a Swedish soft drink on mine, neither of which I have any personal connection to.) Jeraphine has been here for about four years and is an experienced editor over a wide variety of subjects. I hope that you can see where we are coming from - Wikipedia is targeted by a very large number of people with points of view to push, sales to encourage, or plain destructive tendencies. There is a lot of work going on to keep things balanced, neutral, and non-promotional. Peridon (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that makes more sense, Peridon. Thanks for that explanation. Am I therefore blocked permanently? Philocentric (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would help to promise not to post links again, especially not to that site and especially not in mass amounts (without discussion/others' agreement). Blocks aren't punishment, they're just meant to prevent disruption. You weren't reacting to warnings, so. Though typically "spammers" get blocked indefinitely because it's obvious they only have one purpose. I would try using the unblock template again and explaining why it's a good idea to unblock you. I think it should work, or at least I support your unblocking, but I'm not an expert at this stuff. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm teaching/researching more now anyway, and ought to spend less time trying to contribute to sites of this sort. Thanks for trying to explain the nuances of the regulations here. Philocentric (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is blocked permanently. We use 'indefinitely', which is somewhat equivalent to the UK's 'at Her Majesty's pleasure' (meaning until the Home Secretary is convinced there's no more danger...). In practice, some people will never manage to convince us that they are now sane and responsible members of the community - but you never know. I'd be quite happy to unblock if the blocking admin hasn't got a lasting objection (@Materialscientist:) based on other matters. (Behind the scenes, this place is a bit like a cross between the Oxford, Cambridge and Unseen Universities, but with a touch of surrealism and the committee of an Allotment Society thrown in.) Peridon (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm teaching/researching more now anyway, and ought to spend less time trying to contribute to sites of this sort. Thanks for trying to explain the nuances of the regulations here. Philocentric (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)