User talk:BlueMist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:NY Amateur)
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello[edit]

Self serving reference[edit]

Hi, concerning this edit and the edit summary, apparently adding this link is this user's sole activity here. See 80.44.118.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

Do you think this needs attention? - DVdm (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

He also added himself at Absolute time and space. It's beyond me why academics lower themselves to this level.
I followed his reference, found a $365.- encyclopedia without online access. He is a remarkably well published author in other, unrelated fields. I wish he would register and become a useful contributor in his areas of expertise.
Can anything be done about an anonymous user from a uni site? BlueMist (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Reverting edits and warnings on talk page, but only if the references don't back the content to which they are attached. If it is indeed an encyclopedia, then this is a tertiary source, whereas wikipedia requires secondary sources. So the edits couls in principle be reverted as wp:unsourced and standard user talk warning templates like {{uw-unsourced}} could be used, but again, only if the references don't back the content. - DVdm (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous Peoples, Tertiary Source Removal[edit]

Hi Maunus, I removed the encyclopedia references from Indigenous Peoples because

1) they were placed there by the authors or associates of the authors as part of a campaign to advertise their articles at the expense of vandalizing Wikipedia. They made similar additions to 28 different articles, some unrelated to their expertise.
2) tertiary sources are not acceptable as Wikipedia sources, secondary sources are required.

Since you were not aware of the history of the contributors, I can understand your objections. It would be helpful if you undid your own edit. Thanks, BlueMist (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, BlueMist. You have new messages at Maunus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(mirror)

You are wrong that tertiary sources are not accepted. Secondary sources are preferred but not required. This can be seen in the policy WP:TERTIARY. Spam on the other hand is a valid reason for removal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I see your point. Unfortunately, wiki policy leaves wiggle room for "more reliable" tertiary sources. It should not, although my shoulds don't matter to wiki. Unlike many secondary sources, tertiary sources are not independently peer reviewed, thus there is no way to know which ones are more or less reliable.
In this instance, the sources are pushed by two unregistered IP's, both from the Durham area, and of the 28 pages, at least 2 are about Durham U. The Encyclopedia is sold by Amazon for $328.23, plus or minus, and there are no reviews and there is no online access. I would not think that reliable.
Well, in any case, I really don't think those folk should be adding not one, but three references to this page. BlueMist (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows many sources that are not peer reviewed, and so it should. Topical encyclopedias and other tertiary sources published by academic presses are most certainly peerreviewed and their entries are written by established experts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Philosophy aside, you seem hell bent on retaining these useless, IP spammed references. Have you read the three articles? As far as I can tell, you'd have to buy their $328- encyclopedia, even then you would have no way of peer reviewing the text and its possible social or political biases. BlueMist (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems pretty ridiculous to claim that I seem hell bent when I have already conceded that these inclusions are spam. I maybe hell bent that you shouldnt misrepresent policy when you revert good faith inclusions. We accept tertiary sources and we always have. You can get access to their encyclopedia through a library if you want to review it. It is also not a requirement for sources that they be available for purchase at a particularly economic prize.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, regarding this edit[1]: goodfaith addition of content or sources is not vandalism, and should not be referred to as such, even when someone considers it spam. This is clearly a goodfaith addition.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I now have the three volumes of the encyclopeda in front of me and they are not fake. It is in fact a high quality topical encyclopedia with articles written by topic experts. This is the kind of tertiary source that is very useful as a source on wikipedia. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

articles written by topic experts?

All the articles were written by the same spammer. BlueMist (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
No, they were not. They are written by professors at different universities.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

articles written by topic experts?

All the *28* articles I've seen here on Wikipedia were written by Mughal, Muhammad Aurang Zeb. Are you that author? BlueMist
Mughal has written two articles in the encyclopedia - the one on Brazil and the one on Spain. The IP inserted those two articles, in support of facts that are in fact found in the articles. So even if you have a suspicion the Ip that inserted them were the author that does not mean that they should be removed - because they are reliable source that support facts in articles. The correct thing to do would have been to notify the IP of our COI policies, and then leave the citations in untill such a time that you could supply a better source for the same information. Removing valid sourcing just because of a COI suspicion is not helpful for the encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

articles written by topic experts?

Read this again, please:
All the 28 (that's TWENTY EIGHT) articles I've seen here on Wikipedia were written by Mughal, Muhammad Aurang Zeb.
There are probably many more that I have not seen. How on earth do you find that kind of shameless serial spamming defensible? He is obviously advertizing his own work for only God knows what purpose. BlueMist
It is defensible because he has also added sourcing to TWENTY EIGHT unsourced statements. The intention is irrelevant, the result counts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mercer: Analogy of the Divided Line Edits[edit]

Hi Mercer.philosophy,

Most, but not all of your changes to the Analogy of the Divided Line considerably degrade the contents. In particular, 1) English Wikipedia uses English titles, i.e. Timaeus, not the Greek title. 2) Your changing of 'Plato' to 'Socrates' is very wrong in the context of the article. The name of the puppet character is quite irrelevant when it comes to Plato's epistemology of the Republic.

Will you please reverse all your latest changes, with the exception of the Upper-lower case for the titles, which is great. BlueMist (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your compliments on our efforts. Yes, this is English Wikipedia and the title 'Timaeus' should, I agree, be in English. Revision has been made.

We feel the assertion that Socrates is a 'puppet character' to be too strong. Socrates was the master of Plato and Plato has written his dialogues as if it were Socrates who was the philosopher. We thought that since there is no solid evidence to the contrary, we should be charitable to Plato and assume that he strove to be as true to Socrates' teachings as was possible. Thus, while we of course must affirm that Plato is the author of the dialogues themselves, we think Socrates should be cited as the father of the philosophies at hand.


Who is this "we" who decides to credit the philosophy of the greatest philosopher in history to his primary literary character?
I see no evidence that you are familiar with the prevailing secondary literature, according to which, only the 'Socratic' dialogues mirror the views of the historical philosopher Socrates.
The 'middle' and 'late' dialogues are deemed as Plato's original philosophy, with the literary character Socrates as the primary protagonist. The Republic belongs to the middle group.
Do you have any peer-reviewed evidence or reference that supports your personal, unorthodox views?
I am transferring this conversation to talk:Analogy of the Divided Line for public comments. BlueMist (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply You speak about the 'greatest philosopher.' From your writings we can assume that by this you mean 'Plato'. We ask by what justification Plato is given this title? If he was so great then shouldn't we think his master all the greater?

And yes, it is regretted that we are not as learned on such subjects as we should be but you seem to imply that all scholars of note are agreed that the Analogy of the Divided Line is the work exclusively of Plato with no mentionable influence from Socrates. Again, how can this be as Socrates was Plato's master and Plato writes as if recounting what Socrates said?

Yet we agree with you that no one should speak as if one side or the other is known absolutely, and to do so was not our intention.

This being the case it is still true that Socrates is the main 'character' and that he is presented as the one speaking the Analogy. Furthermore, Plato's authorship has already been noted in the introduction to the article. Therefore, doesn't it seem more correct to speak of Socrates as employing the Analogy? For example, if we were working on an article about the life of Jesus in the gospel of Mark, we would not say that 'Mark told parables to the masses' or that 'Mark told his disciples that he would be crucified.' In the same way, Socrates is the character speaking the Analogy and so he is the subject, not Plato. Mercer.philosophy (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Concerning the introduction to the Analogy of the Divided Line[edit]

We wrote:

The Analogy of the Divided Line is presented by the Greek philosopher Plato in his work The Republic Book VI (509D–513E). It is written as a dialogue between Glaucon (Plato's elder brother) and Socrates, narrated by the latter. Plato has Socrates explain through the literary device of a divided line his fundamental metaphysical ideas as four separate but logically connected models of the world. The four models are arranged into a first pair for the visible world, and a second pair for the purely intelligible world. The models are described in succession as corresponding to increasing levels of reality from common illusion, to belief, to reasoning, and then to philosophical understanding.


You also seem to have reversed the table. There may have been improvements to be made but a complete removal seems a little harsh. The stated reason for these reversals was that the above quotation contains unsupported personal expression. Could you specify where the fault is to be found?


--Mercer.philosophy (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerned that you did not practice diligent editing or possibly protecting a viewpoint???[edit]

  • BlueMist(talk) you recently deleted several edits that had links under see also to various viewpoints associated with relativism and also links under criticism as POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relativism&oldid=597962247 They are Wiki articles supported with ample references and are thus not POV. Did you look at the links before you deleted? It is proper to use links and a brief description in other articles. It is even encouraged. The links provide more details and all the needed references. It was not POV but supported by the linked articles. I hope this explains how referencing can and does work through associated articles. You are welcome to bring over all the references from linked articles but it is not necessary. I am concerned that you may not have been neutral in your POV. Maybe it is a simple misunderstanding. I added to a very deficient article from other wiki articles that oppose relativism under criticism. None of it was my original research or opinion but a brief from the articles I linked. You also removed them under see also. It appears you performed a quick revert without checking out the links. That happens way to much on wikipedia and hinders the development of articles and turns off others from editing. Please spend the time before reverting editing. If you do not have the time then leave it alone. Also consider challenging the edit and then things can get sorted out. Simple deleting is usually unconstructive. I hope this helps with future edits. 172.56.10.195 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. Most edtors are ok with rewording or adding to an article but reverting is often like chopping of an arm becuase your finger is bleeding. Feel free to edit but use reverts cautiously. Most editors are not the experts they think they are except me. A little humor.
  • As it happens, I have considerable expertise on the topic of philosophical relativism gained through many years of academic research and interaction. Can you say the same?
The Relativism article desperately needs a thorough, positive, explanatory rewrite. Unfortunately, I see your added comments and even your added links, regardless of their source, as purely negative and deconstructive. BlueMist (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Claims on wiki unless verified are just unsubstaniated claims so unless you are outing yourself it is just a brag. Any nut can claim anything on Wiki so claiming something means nothing as a 13 year old can claim to have a doctorate here. You may be someone special but it would be illogical for me to assume anything about you other than you claim to be an expert. I could tell you I am an academic with a background in logic and even through on an expert hat but it would be of no use unless I could substaniate that claim. I could be a hobbyist making grandeous claims to add authority to my arguments.172.56.10.54 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    Well at least you acknowledge you were upset with their tone but somewhat reluctantly acknowledge they were sourced. But they were under criticism so what would someone expect, praise? It appears you have reinforced my question about protecting a viewpoint. 172.56.10.54 (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I am protecting wiki NPOV of a controversial topic. BlueMist (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    Again you are making my point. This is really not that controversial unless someone wants to push their viewpoint. Please note the logical statemnet I have made.172.56.10.54 (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    I could not resist to point out the irony of someone defending relativism to say they are "protecting NPOV." That makes a moral universalist argument and somewhat contradicts relativism. The logical critique was too hard to resist. Sorry you are likely a good natured chap but we disagree on some philosophical viewpoints.172.56.10.54 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)