User talk:Dominic Mayers/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dominic Mayers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Talk page clerking
It is not up to you to clerk the talk pages. Kindly do not move people's comments into sections, change section titles, or enshrine comments of your own in little boxes at the beginning of sections. Just follow along and use the talk pages in the same way everyone else is - acoording to the WP:TPG. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but the sections have been totally reorganized. I don't care for much of this reorganization, except for the fact that a section which discusses "attributing or not" or "fact or not" is presented as being an aspect of not taking side. Therefore, I restored that aspect of the structure to its original state before this big reorganization. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even if the sections have been totally reorganized, you are making the problem worse. Don't do that. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you are right, but I sincerely thought it was a good compromise: I accepted this big reorganisation that affected a lot the existing comments by changing the context, but I expressed a disaccord. I am also OK with simply restoring the structure (partially, for what matter the most) to its state before this big reorganization. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Edits like this one you made yesterday also changed the context of comments. Just don't do it any more, and let other folks worry about their own behaviour. MrOllie (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Of course it changes the context of comments, but that is the idea. Editors, as long as it is done in the spirit of a better understanding, are certainly allowed to reorganize sections. You speak as if
other folks
have broken a rule, but they did not, even if they did that boldly without any previous discussions. It was just a very normal process of making change to the sections. What is wrong is to make a big deal about this and accusing people of disruption, etc. only because you disagree with a change (but I know that it is not what you are doing here - I am not speaking of you). It is the same thing for the box. There is certainly no rule that says that we should not add a box to explain an aspect of the organization. The most serious issue here is when disagreements about content (and organization) are escalated into behavioural issues with the menace always planning that you might be blocked if you do not comply, as it is well explained here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)- What you have been doing on that talk page is not a 'very normal process', it is disruptive. There, I have accused you of disruption. Kindly listen and reevaluate what you have been doing. As a participant in that discussion you should not be attempting to reorganize it. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I take seriously comments like this one. I understand that principle, which is consistent with Grisel explanation. I was planning to take my distance from the discussion anyway. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- What you have been doing on that talk page is not a 'very normal process', it is disruptive. There, I have accused you of disruption. Kindly listen and reevaluate what you have been doing. As a participant in that discussion you should not be attempting to reorganize it. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Of course it changes the context of comments, but that is the idea. Editors, as long as it is done in the spirit of a better understanding, are certainly allowed to reorganize sections. You speak as if
- Edits like this one you made yesterday also changed the context of comments. Just don't do it any more, and let other folks worry about their own behaviour. MrOllie (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you are right, but I sincerely thought it was a good compromise: I accepted this big reorganisation that affected a lot the existing comments by changing the context, but I expressed a disaccord. I am also OK with simply restoring the structure (partially, for what matter the most) to its state before this big reorganization. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even if the sections have been totally reorganized, you are making the problem worse. Don't do that. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Your recent questions about NPOV
Hi Dominic,
If you're willing, I'd appreciate it if you sent me an email. You can email me by clicking on the icon in the top right of my talk page. I hope we can connect. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I saw your comment here and I do not think that definitions are important within a team, except in the context of a given theory. The important is that, in a given context, say a given theory, people in the team understand each others. This may require that we give examples to explain how we interpret some terms, but beyond that definitions are not important in team communication. Proper buzz words are important for the public image of Wikipedia and I feel that was your point. This is a separate problem. I do not mind that people discuss the best buzz words to use, but that is another step, which can be managed separately. For the communication among us, we do not need to worry about the buzz words aspect. Though, I can say that I do not feel that "neutral point of view", "not takings sides", etc. are bad expressions for the public image. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 8 June 2024
- Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade
- Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor
- In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say
- News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024
- Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth
- Featured content: We didn't start the wiki
- Essay: No queerphobia
- Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!
- Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer
- Comix: The Wikipediholic Family
- Concept: Palimpsestuous
The Signpost: 4 July 2024
- News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates
- Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board
- In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators
- Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna
- In the media: War and information in war and politics
- Sister projects: On editing Wikisource
- Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion
- Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos
- Humour: A joke
- Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps
- Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play
The Signpost: 22 July 2024
- Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo
- News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification
- Obituary: JamesR
- Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword
The Signpost: 14 August 2024
- In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse
- In focus: Twitter marks the spot
- News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.
- Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?
- Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing
- Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird
- Humour: I'm proud to be a template
Persistent disruptive editing at Talk:Epistemology
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Epistemology, you may be blocked from editing. Please review WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue in which to ponder the reorganization of a philosophical field. You are obviously a thoughtful and knowledgeable editor, but seemingly interminable talk page objections to seemingly every edit only gets in the way of making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. No one wants you to be sanctioned, but, please, make a more serious effort to be constructive by presenting more concise and concrete suggestions for improvement (or other actionable items) when you post to talk pages—as you have already been asked on multiple occassions. Thank you, Patrick (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I notice in your page that your domain of interest in Wikipedia is philosophy and thus you have a personal interest on the matter. People that comes here should know that. Every thing I wrote in the PdD of Epistemology should have been useful. It is sad that it was not, but that was not entirely on my control. In any case, I am taking very seriously what you say and it was my intention anyway to address the issue from a larger perspective. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for being so gracious in your receipt of this notification. I do believe that your knowledge, insight, and care for nuanced scholarly distinctions make you exceptionally well-qualified to contribute to Wikipedia on such daunting topics as epistemology. It's just that, as you have to know, the debates you stage on talk pages frequently exasperate and exhaust other editors, and so drive them away from further, more immediately productive discussion.
- As to me, yes, I became seriously interested in editing Wikipedia only when I set out to overhaul the dismal article on Hegel, and I rarely make major edits to articles unrelated to philosophy. However, at least as it is currently practiced, I have extremely limited interest in epistemology. (Give me Merleau-Ponty instead, any time!) So I don't believe I have a horse in the race in how this article turns out, however provisionally, at the end of this round of edits and discussions.
- Finally, you might consider that your efforts to attain a "larger perspective" may actually be the underlying problem. This objective seems to not infrequently set you at odds with Wikipedia policy and guidelines—and so, inevitably, with other editors.
- Are you by chance working on a monograph? If not, you might consider it alongside contributions to Wikipedia that are based upon currently existing high-quality sources. I'd read it! And it would be a more effective way of evolving the conversation, which might then trickle down, uncontroversially, to Wikipedia.
- That's it from me, at least for now, in terms of totally unsolicited advice –
- Cheers, Patrick (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I notice that, not only your main interest is philosophy, but you have collaborated with the wikipedian that refuses to discuss my criticisms and is inclined to see them as perturbations. Also, your accusation that I wish to
ponder the reorganization of a philosophical field
, besides being false—on the contrary, I wish that we present the actual organization of the field, not change it—shows that you are personally concerned about the details of the issue. You try to present yourself as disinterested, but obviously you are not. Those who come here should also be aware of that. Yet, I take what you say seriously, because one cannot ignore the visions of others, especially not in Wikipedia. You are right, a few people having the vision that I am perturbing their project is enough to be blocked. This is so sad, but it is the way it is. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)- Yes, I did collaborated with @Phlsph7 to bring philosophy up to GA status, and I'm proud of that work, for which they deserve the lion's share of the credit. We have also, however, clashed over philosophical and editorial matters, as for instance here. So please leave off with the aspersions.
- If you have a good source supporting your view of the field, please present it on the article talk page. But please be aware that you appear to be attempting to conduct a research project to outline the field in a way that does not exist in the literature. And it does not help that you appear to be doing the same thing at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Épistémologie in a similarly disruptive way. Patrick (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I said what I have to say. I am not interested to pursue this discussion where I am falsely accused. But, I suppose it is your honest vision. So, it is sad. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- You wrote:
This objective [a larger perspective] seems to not infrequently set you at odds with Wikipedia policy and guidelines...
Which policy and guidelines did I violate? I do not see that. I understand that there is an approach perhaps used by a majority of wikipedians that consist in fixing the subject and scope of an article by selecting a few sources and follow them, in particular to determine the core concepts to present in the article. This is fine in itself, but it becomes problematic when it is done too fanatically, as if the sources (which represent a relatively old culture and tradition, perhaps 50 years old or so) had no context, no history, etc. and that we should follow what they say, basically make Wikipedia a platform for this culture or tradition, while rejecting a larger perspective that is factual, interesting, pertinent and verifiable in other sources. I believe that, on the contrary, my approach is more in line with the fundamental spirit of Wikipedia that wants to allow collaboration between different cultures and traditions. Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)- You routinely challenge WP:VERIFIABLE claims cited to high-quality WP:RELIABLESOURCES based upon a tendentious interpretation of WP:NPOV in a way that makes it extremely difficult for other editors to improve even an article that you yourself insist upon littering with maintenance tags, which are not intended to be used as a long-term statement of your opinion about an article (e.g., [1]). Patrick (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Patrick Welsh: Thank you for raising this issue. I have been contemplating for a while on how to best address the problems with Dominic's behavior.
- @Dominic Mayers: There are several issues with your behavior.
- Various editors have pointed out that you keep misusing maintenance tags. All the maintenance tags you recently added to the article led to endless discussions. The result in each case was a consensus to remove the tag without any change.
- You keep writing walls of text that often fail to address the main concern. For example, you present a personal opinion that is false. Another editor points this out by presenting sources that contradict your view. They ask for a source that would support your view, but you respond with more walls of text without presenting a source to back your personal opinion.
- The misunderstandings seem to concern not only the field of epistemology but also Wikipedia guidelines, like your claim that WP:NPOV applies not just to significant views published in reliable sources but to any view.
- You cast WP:ASPERSIONS by falsely saying that I refuse to discuss your criticisms and by falsely claiming that the global issue is that I'm not genuine in the discussions.
- These problems have been going on for quite a while now without any indications that your behavior would change. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I explained to Patrick, I do not wish to try further "discuss" with you and you can edit Epistemology as you wish, because you only state that I am disturbing and you never really replied to my points. You present a list of sources that represent the field and you think that you are allowed to follow them, without having to take a perspective, because they represent the field. I disagree that it is a valid procedure. For example, I still think that the statement "is a major branch" even if it is verifiable is not saying anything informative, except that the partisans of the field think it is a major branch, and we should favor content that is meaningful. If you think it is meaningful and says something important, it is only because you consider that the sources are so important that we can follow them and take side with them. In contrast, I accept that attitude for science or for simple facts, but never for philosophy. So, I think it says nothing interesting, just an opinion of the partisans, but that we could make it interesting by explaining it more, the history of it, etc. I have the right to this opinion and it is as important than the opposite opinion that the sentence is pertinent and useful for the readers. The fact that it is verifiable does not prove that my opinion is wrong and the opposite opinion is correct. So, there was no genuine discussion at all regarding this issue. Again, I disagree, but I will not discuss further and do whatever you want with Epistemology. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- You say I challenge WP:VERIFIABLE claims, but that is not a violation of anything. It's perfectly fine to do that. Stating such an important rule in the context of an accusation, makes it look as if I am breaking that rule. This is not a rational way to communicate. You say it is a tendentious interpretation of NPOV, but that does not allow me to further discuss, because you do not discuss my points. It is only a way to dismiss my points without discussing, as it as happened in the talk page. I have enough of this. This is recorded in my history and I will use it at some point. I do not wish to further "discuss" with you. Do whatever you want with Epistemology I am not interested to contribute on an article when genuine discussion is not possible. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- You routinely challenge WP:VERIFIABLE claims cited to high-quality WP:RELIABLESOURCES based upon a tendentious interpretation of WP:NPOV in a way that makes it extremely difficult for other editors to improve even an article that you yourself insist upon littering with maintenance tags, which are not intended to be used as a long-term statement of your opinion about an article (e.g., [1]). Patrick (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I notice that, not only your main interest is philosophy, but you have collaborated with the wikipedian that refuses to discuss my criticisms and is inclined to see them as perturbations. Also, your accusation that I wish to
I took note of the points made. I take your attitude toward me seriously and respect that you see me that way even though it is sad. I am going to act accordingly. I still disagree with the approach used in the article and don't think a good article will result from it. Nevertheless, I will not further intervene in Epistemology, because I am not doing that kind of fight. I genuinely hoped that a discussion would be possible in a positive mindset. I now erase this discussion, because there is no need to further discuss. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Toxicology on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 September 2024
- News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked
- In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?
- News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election
- Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024
- Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year
- Traffic report: After the gold rush
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Microsoft Windows on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2024
- In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"
- Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus
- Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics
- Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing
- News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?
- Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors
- Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox country on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Landmark Worldwide on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Notes for myself
A reference to Stove[1] was removed from Falsifiability by an IP because the IP does not understand what the distinction between the logical level and the methodological level means in Popper. Stove argues against falsifiability by raising methodological issues and Popper insists that falsifiability is at the logical level. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- ^ Stove 1982, p. 92.
- Stove, David (1982) [First published 1982]. Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists. Pergamon Press. ISBN 978-0-080-26792-0. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 October 2024
- News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning
- Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper
- In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!
- Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South
- Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night
- Book review: The Editors
- Humour: The Newspaper Editors
- Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:15.ai on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 November 2024
- From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime
- In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel
- Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship
- Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wolf on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)