User talk:Machine Elf 1735

Can I get your opinion in this article? User Talk:JudgementSummary is populating the article with an essay. I've tried multiple times to explain how fundamentally wrong his editing style is, but he doesn't get the point. I'd like a second opinion before I take the next step, just in case I'm horribly misreading the situation. But honestly the article's pretty awful. — Wing gundam (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No question about it, and it's only getting worse.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But he's buckling down... —Wing gundam (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think he knows about user space? Almost no interference...—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 08:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he's knows he's on Wikipedia (the five "Consideration" sections suggest he thinks he's in Word). He's suggested "mediation" in his reversion... He still doesn't get it. Also that's his 3rd in 24 hours, counting minor reversions. —Wing gundam (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he just reverted a fourth time. We've been patient. I've tried explaining several times. I've already asked for a WP:THIRD; he completely ignored you. Do you want to file an WP:ANI? —Wing gundam (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it here: incident —Wing gundam (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Can I get your comment/vote on this? I note that JudgementSummary's 5 "Considerations" must be summarily deleted. Because JudgementSummary actively interferes with their removal, and is classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he should be blocked. —wing gundam 03:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly might Eebster the Great have been involved? WP:CANVAS.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing, that's obviously the point. As the WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification requires, he was asked in a single, public post, of neutral content. He is non-partisan, just like you were when I asked you (or so I thought). You're the two editors I've most recently collaborated with. But this accusatory, frankly rude behavior is precisely what Eebster the Great was talking about when he said you need to change your attitude. —wing gundam 10:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you just accused me of canvassing. And call a spade a spade, that was an accusation. Making pointless, easily-falsifiable accusations just wastes time. And it distracts from the primary issue: JudgementSummary's disruptive essay-writing in clockwork universe. It's as clear as day; you said so yourself. And it's only getting worse. —wing gundam 11:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've just proclaimed that, obviously, he was absolutely not directly related... "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion... On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion... "

was not mentioned in the discussion... "On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion... "

was not concerned... "On the talk pages of concerned editors..."

has not participated... "... participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)..."

is not known for expertise ... "... known for expertise in the field..."

has not asked to be kept informed ... "... asked to be kept informed..."

Collaborated on tag team edit warring and personal attacks? Obviously, as you've just demonstrate above, you absolutely share all of his opinions... "...The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it..."

You even claimed I was a WP:THIRD! Wake up, "he should be blocked" is just about as far from "neutral" as it gets.

You're a real comedian... and no less culpable for supporting his lies. "Making pointless, easily-falsifiable accusations just wastes time."—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a dispute regarding an alleged case of closed paraphrasing here. Please not the most recent version of the article, which is in the table at the very bottom of that discussion. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Simulated_reality#CantGoTu_Environments, you have transferred the Note "(Note: from the perspective of its inhabitants, a Virtual Reality is a Simulated Reality)" from the article text into the citations (after adding a very useful citation in support of the Note, thanks; incidentally thanks also for tidying up my Bostrom and Chalmers citations). I put that Note in when undeleting the section because somebody from Wikpedia's Cleanup Project had deleted the entire section on the stated grounds that it was about Virtual Reality and not Simulated Reality. My concern is that with the note disappearing into the citations, the section no longer has anything in the text to tell either a casual reader or a would-be deleter that the section has anything to do with Simulated Reality. So I would like the Note transfered back to the text, now usefully backed up by your supporting citation, and perhaps with any rewording you might deem appropriate. But as you must have had your reasons for transferring it in the first place, I thought I'd better first ask your opinion before attempting anything of the sort. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It did sound like a note to editors, but that only encourages them :) Really, citations are most the effective means of conservation.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 09:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Not too sure how to best format the thing or what all might be going on there.... But your changes seem to be shifting the categories upwards. The show/hide toggle is appearing (from where I'm sitting) above the headings. This shifts everything up one category, leaving an empty category at the bottom (under M. alchemy). Hope this helps. Didn't want to just go and revert it again after you went to all the trouble of formatting it. Thanks. Car Henkel (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a problem in chrome were show/hide isn't even visible and the headers are shifted so far up that they look like they belong to the previous section. So, instead of fighting it, I made each header a footer of the subsequent section and tightened them up a bit. I hadn't noticed but I see that's especially confusing with the extra show/hide at the end... Well then, better to swap them back I suppose and try relative positioning from there... Thanks—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Looks nice like that! Car Henkel (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir/madam,
You could use this design as a sample of applying the notion of Classical Elements in contemporary architecture.
Best,
--2.187.107.80 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MachineElf: You've put the same long footnote to JJ Katz in meta-ontology in two places. It consists of an edited quote describing the Carnap-Quine debate that comes down in Quine's favor. A couple of questions: Do we need to repeat this long quotation twice? Could this Katz' analysis be put into the text instead of in a footnote where some context could be added? Could the pro-Carnap view of the matter, or at least, the defects in Quine's analysis be given some play? Brews ohare (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed... accidentally pasted both into the first paragraph. It's not really a toss up Brews, most "come down in Quine's favor", by far. Not sure why you've been so pro-Carnap/anti-Quine... (peculiar, and it showed). They're already in context.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is proposed to start a page to replace the present redirect from Deflationism to Deflationary theory of truth. An RfC can be found on its talk page at Deflationism. Please make comments and provide suggestions for improvement. Brews ohare (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for moving your message of 17:13. I noticed in your edit summary that there was an edit conflict and I thought you were addressing Brews ohare's last message, rather than mine. Since you put your 17:13 message back after my message, I presume that is your response to my message of 17:07. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to bring Fallacy back to your attention. I noted you had rv my edits. I did rv it back, because I failed to get your point about being too bold. I am commenting here because I wanted to make sure you where able to return to the article to help me improve this article. As you can see it needs a lot of work. Could you help me by using the talk page. Others have given input on how to improve the article with regard to the tags on the top, but I have not seen any ideas from you. Thanks. R00m c (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does need work. I'm not sure a merge is the way to go but at the same time, I don't think the material on formal and informal fallacies shouldn't be there just as well. Some of the informal material could possibly be trimmed or go to the informal fallacy article, but not too much all at once, so it's easy to stay caught up.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs please. I believe you cannot count as well as not understand policy. SpinningSpark 16:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right... it was the "notifications" from your reverts of my edits to your talk page. You've only reverted the article twice without explaining why you're insisting on bad ref syntax. Considering that you're an administrator, your lack of civility is appalling.[1][2]—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start again then. The article has two references that are each cited in two different places. The bad syntax (and I agree that it is bad) seems to be intended to combine the two instances of the same ref on one line in the references using the WP:REFNAME syntax. The editor might not have done it completely correctly, but it does actually work. Your edit stripping out the "name=" parameters has broken this ref combining. That's what I think you need to fix. SpinningSpark 16:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for doing that. SpinningSpark 17:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted and apologies for not getting around to it, but I see that it's been sorted now. Sorry about that, busy decorating for Christmas and other RL stuff, plus numerous issues here. Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aristotelian physics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transmutation (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The merge result means only that the original content does not merit a stand alone article and any relevant would be covered in the Merge article. It does not and cannot mandate what happens to the content after the merge, McKenna's and your crusade for his hallucinations notwithstanding. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the consensus to merge the article remains despite your failed attempt to delete it. It certainly does mandate that the article be merged so quit trying to prevent that and thank you for not edit warring.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It IS FUCKING MERGED and was merged BY ME before the pointless restoration that led to the pointless AfD that produced the same result.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't mind your candor and I'm sure you can appreciate that consensus decides whether or not it's already merged.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Air (classical element) 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.

Please note that any further action on your part to undue or revert the change to the page will result in you being reported and possibly banned! Whenever a source is cited, it is not considered "Original Research"; please re-read our page on Original Research if you are having a problem coming to terms with this. Also note that this post will be temporarily locked; you can see the request at WP:RPP. Thank you!

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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC) —AGAR2EM1¹⁷³⁵ 21:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think you won't be blocked for edit warring, AGAR2EM1? Bishonen | talk 21:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 12.234.39.130 (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are still monitoring the ANI case. However I have just posted a [edia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Moving_forward link to a suggested way forward] on one article in the hope of breaking what is an entrained pattern that is getting stressful for all involved. I admit to loosing my cool a few times in the last few months. If you have the time/energy your comments would be appreciated. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1735 - You've just reverted a small edit I did in Aristotelian Physics. In my view, using the expression "as early as Galileo" to describe a lapse of 1900 years isn't NPOV: it implies something that happened relatively quickly and in any view (that's surely not OR?) 1900 years in the history of physics is a long time. The citation after this statement refers to a book about the scientific tradition up to AD 1450, so the "as early as Galileo" quote could hardly be a central part of the referenced material. Could you explain why the revert, please? Thomas Peardew (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The full sentence reads "This becomes especially apparent in partial vacuum experiments, but as early as Galileo, it was demonstrated that objects of different weights reach the ground in similar times." [3] because Galileo is centuries earlier than partial vacuum experiments. Maybe we could say "but centuries earlier Galileo demonstrated"?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, I see what the "as early as" was supposed to refer to. I'll clean it up. Thomas Peardew (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm still not entirely happy with the description of Aristotle's ideas about what we'd now call gravity - what he actually said (as far as I could discover) doesn't really amount to the rather carefully expressed formula "the speed at which two identically shaped objects sink or fall is directly proportional to their weights and inversely proportional to the density of the medium through which they move". Thomas Peardew (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Machine Elf:

You tagged Enactivism as "written like a a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic". Can you explain in what way this article states some WP editor's "personal opinion". For example, the introductory section cites nine sources with verbatim quotes from tow or three of them. I don't see a single thought there that is not reflective of one or another of these sources. That is not my idea of a "personal reflection" or "opinion essay". Is it yours? Brews ohare (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it more clear that I'm undoing your reverts of Snowded.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an explanation, exactly. Possibly an indication of your support of the unreasoned actions taken by Snowded, perhaps an indication that you aren't big on reliance upon sources either? In sum, you want to change this article to an expression of your personal reflections and make it into an essay expressing your opinions? It could be seen that way when sources are not involved in support of what is offered as your (or more accurately I guess, Snowded's) positions on 'affordance', 'autopoiesis', and AI vis à vis enactivism. Brews ohare (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is that edit warring thing Snowded and I mentioned... so maybe work on a different project today?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit warring when an editor insists upon unsupported assertions of personal opinion. Reversion of such unargued and unsourced expurgations is a correction of vandalism, nothing more glamorous than that. Brews ohare (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MachineElf, So far in the above you haven't offered any justification for your tagging of the article with {{essay like}}. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob I've clearly stated that I reverted Brew on account of WP:3RR.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant to contact you earlier. I'm working on it. I have been putting it off, my bad. I thought there might be something but didn't take a look. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Binksternet has created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I and a few other contributors to the Philosophical Naturalism article believe that methodological naturalism is worthy of its own page. I've therefore started a draft you are free to edit before I submit after of few weeks. Cheers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philocentric/methodological_naturalism Philocentric (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ME. You have reverted my deletion about the telos. I couldn't make sense of the sentence and neither could the GA reviewer. Is there something clearer we could say? Myrvin (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes, I was just going to leave you a note on talk. I think they simply meant an English word would be less confusing. I'd be happy to work with you on these but I might not have much time this weekend. Thanks for your patience.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I couldn't find the idea in the cited ref at all. phrase "tremendously informed" doesn't seem to make sense. You have also reverted some other changes there. Myrvin (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section had been edited to remove all the Greek terms... I'd have to see what the ref had been meant for... Why doesn't it make sense to you? Not yet sure how you'd have phrased it...—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused. Moving this to the Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Elf: Can you help me correct the error I made when I tried to continue the conversation you started when you reverted my edit of “Instrumentalism” on 1 August? We have to continue that thread.

Rather than continuing your thread by indenting my comments, I started two new talk sections “Deciding relevance” (6 August) and “Where is the name?“ (10 August).

Would you want to respond to my 2 new sections? Or should I again delete the article section “Ancient Greece,” you revert it again, and I properly indent my comments? Or do you have a better suggestion?

Please advise. Thanks. TBR-qed (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is very encouraging. Thank you.TBR-qed (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed Neil deGrasse Tyson from the list of proponents of the multiverse hypothesis. Why shouldn't the Cosmos program be a valid source? In at least one episode he clearly states that he is among those scientists who agree with the concept. Italia2006 (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall that, what episode?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been quite a while, but we had come communications regarding Aristotle's Physics some years back. I thought you might be interested in a paper published last month: Maximal motion and minimal matter: Aristotelian physics and special relativity. JKeck (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]