User talk:Lisnabreeny

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Lisnabreeny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou :) Lisnabreeny (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

When writing an edit summary, please do not place your summary inside a /* */ markup. That markup is reserved for individual section edits (it is automatically inserted when you click the "Edit" button on an individual section of a page as opposed to the "Edit" button on the very top) so that people viewing the history know that only a specific section has been edited. Placing your actual edit summary inside that markup obfuscates your meaning and creates confusion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, didnt see this. Sorry and thanks for explaining. I realise my edits have been far to messy, and i have resolved to using preview properly now and learning more markup. Lisnabreeny (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to nature

Please note that nominating an article at Articles for deletion is a 3-step process. Please follow all three steps listed at WP:AFDHOWTO. Alternatively, you can leave me a message on my talk page explaining why the article should be deleted and I can complete the nomination for you; however, if you do this, I will only complete a nomination if the nomination is remotely policy-based as per the deletion policy. I will not complete a nomination if the rationale amounts to "I don't like it", or is an attempt to settle an editing dispute. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a valid deletion rationale hidden in an edit summary (see again my note on these above) and have completed the nomination for you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appeal to nature. Please add this to your watchlist and/or check it regularly, as I am not commenting one way or the other on the merits of deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your help KuyaBriBri, I failed to complete the process and was going to try again later Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Refactor

Hi Lisnabreeny,

I don't know if you've had a chance to read the WP:REFACTOR guidelines I recommended yet, but your last edit to Talk:Appeal to nature removed content and made the timeline of events confusing. I've tried to reinsert the additions and changes you made in that same edit. In one case, a somewhat long portion of text was duplicated from earlier (on the same page). That sort of thing makes the page more tedious to follow.

If you like, you can use Template:anchor {{anchor|mylink}} and [[#mylink|my link]] to link back to previous text.

The section names are automatically linked this way. That's one reason why it is generally not a good idea to change the section names on talk pages, (primarily, it frustrates the editors familiar with the old names).

As someone has already pointed out, when you use the WP:EDITSUM, you should not edit inside the slashes, (/* Section name */), you should add your edit summary afterward, (/* Section name */ my summary...). This is because the section names provide a link to the sections themselves. When you change the text between the slashes in the edit summary, the linking feature no longer works. Also, it's confusing to people because they will typically just scan past the gray section name to see what the edit summary says (in black). Because of that, it's very easy to miss all or part of your edit summaries. Another thing you might find useful is creating "sandbox" pages in your user space. There's a little trick to it: the easiest way, is to edit some page and type in a link to the page you want to create, for example, User:Lisnabreeny/My next sandbox. There's no need to actually "Save page" at this point, just click "Show preview", and the link will appear in red, (as it does here). Then click the red link and you'll have the option of creating that new page (discarding the previewed changes). If you click the link here, you can see what the option looks like when a linked page doesn't exist yet.

Clearly, i had already noticed the previous comment on editsum and apologised for it. I think it also WP policy to not bombard new editors with instruction. Especially when you are in the middle of substantial POV and article comprehension disputes with them. Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not like I re-read your entire talk page, I didn't notice you had noticed. "bombard"? whatever, don't worry. I won't try to be helpful again. You removed the POV tag... and I don't know what "article comprehension disputes" are, but for my part, I don't consider myself to be in a dispute with you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check to see what content was removed and restore it. Lisnabreeny (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No content was removed : The diff is here [1], (better one: [2])

Thankyou for finding the duplicated chunk, i have removed it, i think the timeline is clearer now. Lisnabreeny (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I will just leave it there, it looks messy but its your call. Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Machine Elf You duplicated that section and botched the timeline starting with this edit - [[3]]. I have tried to repair it now. Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had to make reverts on the talk page again... For avoidance of doubt, from now on I won't bother trying to salvage new comments added simultaneously with deletions or inappropriate alterations; I'll leave it up to you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ive introduced some new content to the article, and i am going to take a break now for some days, because i have been way too prickly after a difficult process. Will see what survives or changes when i return. Hopefuly you can rise above, tired replies ive left. I have been on the wrong foot. Thanks Machine Elf. Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to "rise above"... We were editing at the same time, (ironically, called an WP:EDITCONFLICT) and I missed a paragraph of my 2:44 post:

I restored what you were partially deleting and moving. I did not "botch" the timeline... that's quite obvious:

(Time Ordering and Consolidation of my previous deletion sections)

Have a nice WP:WIKIBREAK.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You did duplicate a section, strike half out messily and mess up the timeline. And you have insisted on messing up the timeline again, during my break, you moved up the section, "proposed deletion" which was posted 9 days after my first comment in the page "ideological battle". I am not going to edit war the refactoring with you. Anyone who wonders why that section of the page is all mixed up, i will just refer them to your edits. Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I explained what I did in detail, if you then misunderstood what I said here this page, you cannot just choose to remain wildly outraged, after all this time, and keep up these accusations about me. Anyone can take one look at the dates, to say nothing of your edit summary, and see you're not telling the truth (Time Ordering and Consolidation of my previous deletion sections) I'm growing very concerned about your rage toward me. Here's someone who simply voted at the AfD: [4] and you've contacted them saying:

Hello. I noticed you read on the deletion review which i requested for appeal to nature. I have serious disputes with the attention of an editor involved now which i do not believe we will resolve ourselves, and i am not sure how best to take up with WP moderation process. Could you advise please? Thankyou. Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And now that you've brought up on Talk:Appeal to nature, the one time I've ever actually reverted one of your article edits at Naturalistic fallacy... I see how you can't WP:LETGO of such a small thing that you'll go around, weeks and weeks later, claiming you have some "serious dispute" with me? Then you tell them:

Sorry, i will take a break and i maybe have just gotten off on the wrong foot with the editor. No need for outside help now. Apologies Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But what did you do when you got back from your wiki break? You started questioning me about my edits on different articles at Talk:Appeal to nature like the Sophists... And your accusations were crazier than ever! You need to quit it, now. What ever "it" is, stop.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Rage", "You are not telling the truth" - This is not rage. You talk on Machine Elf, i have told the truth, i work with diffs and refactoring frequently in my job. And i can ask administrators, what is the best course of action to seek moderation on issues with editors, whenever i feel that is appropriate. As an experienced wikipedia editor, you should not be telling me not to. I did not mention your nick, simply how to proceed with a moderation issue, which i may do at any time (and you are also free to do) Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking you to stop lying about me and my edits didn't work... I shouldn't tell you to stop? Why, because you won't comply? It doesn't matter I'm an experienced user. You've flat out refused to accept any help from me. You say you didn't mention my name... I don't think mentioning my name would even be necessary after all the screeds you've written about me. What people aren't going to understand, myself included, is why? Because today is only the second time I've ever reverted one of your edits. Not counting talk page edits (and that says a lot right there). Please go right ahead and ask for administrative advice and please, do not hesitate. Do it today.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anyone can take one look at the dates, to say nothing of your edit summary, and see you're not telling the truth (Time Ordering and Consolidation of my previous deletion sections)"

It seems that you saw the term "deletion sections" and red text on the left side of the diff, and assumed i had deleted sections. But "deletion sections" refers to sections concerning the deletion requests. NO TEXT WAS DELETED IN THAT REFACTORING. Also: NO DATES WHERE CHANGED. One recently made cumborsome heading was transiently rephrased, One heading "proposed deletion" perhaps should have been moved along with the block of text under it. Notice, that i put this article up for deletion twice, once with out full review. Now you have moved on from repeatedly, confusedly charging me with errors which i did not make, to calling me a "persistent liar" This MUST be resolved. Lisnabreeny (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not threads of text... stuff like changing a section header to bold text. The context that follows is lost and looks like the prior section. I restored that stuff... Not a big deal, how's your cow?

Obviously you didn't tamper with date sigs. I never said you did.

Moved have I or not not on or on what? "from repeatedly, confusedly charging me with errors which [you] did not make" It can be like a confusion wrapped, and/or inside, an enigma. Show me one error that I did not, in fact, accommodate...

You're misquoting me. I've never called you a "persistent liar". I said you've lied incessantly. Don't persist, if you can stop lying about me and my edits, I'll reciprocate by not calling a lie a lie. You can quit any time you want, right? Why languish in the dramz.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What you have written here, is absolute rubbish. You have called me a liar about 5 times now. Ive have lied about NOTHING, and you have accepted no fault, NEVER substantiated your charge with what I supposedly lied about. One demoted section heading, and one rename, does not justify this rubbish. You are a disingenuous wikibully. Lisnabreeny (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't name one single solitary error I've supposedly "charged" against you that I did not, in fact, accommodate for you.

I have never even once called you a lier Lisnabreeny. I've documented the shameless lies you've been spouting. See the difference?

Fault for what? You know you're lying, who am I supposed to prove it to? Anyone with eyes can see. Not a single pixel was out of place [5] until you had a cow.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:14, 11 February 2011 Lisnabreeny (talk | contribs) (→Possible appeals to nature in popular conciousness) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:39, 12 February 2011 (undo) Machine Elf 1735 (talk | contribs) (WP:REFACTORed revision 413371297 by Lisnabreeny (talk) strikeouts for deletions/signatures/timeline/ Also, rv changes to § names.) Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 70:		Line 70:
	<blockquote>"Nonetheless, one may still feel that there is something right about some appeals to nature. For instance, a diet rich in natural foods-such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains-is probably better than one based on more artificial foods-such as candy, pastries, and sausages. Also, it seems likely that a natural lifestyle-that is, one based on a natural diet and exercise-is in general a healthier one than a sedentary life spent watching television and eating doughnuts.		<blockquote>"Nonetheless, one may still feel that there is something right about some appeals to nature. For instance, a diet rich in natural foods-such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains-is probably better than one based on more artificial foods-such as candy, pastries, and sausages. Also, it seems likely that a natural lifestyle-that is, one based on a natural diet and exercise-is in general a healthier one than a sedentary life spent watching television and eating doughnuts.
-	These forms of argument could be treated as rules of thumb which admit some exceptions, but are still reliable enough to be useful."</blockquote>	+	<s>These forms of argument could be treated as rules of thumb which admit some exceptions, but are still reliable enough to be useful.</s><!-- strikout per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 -->"</blockquote>
-	This quote exemplifies the very casual language and non-philosophical reasoning which this whole article is based on. I nominate for it to be deleted and redirected or replaced with the adequately checked section in: naturalistic fallacy. Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)	+	<s> Ideological Battle
		+
		+	This quote exemplifies the very casual language and non-philosophical reasoning which this whole article is based on. I nominate for it to be deleted and redirected or replaced with the adequately checked section in: naturalistic fallacy.</s><!-- strikout per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
	== Ideological Battle ==		== Ideological Battle ==
	This article is clearly distorted to use in ideological battles with 'green' types. The notion that philosophers have concluded that any preference for nature in any context is fallacious, is absurd. The page is in need of attention from a mature, experienced philosophy editor.		This article is clearly distorted to use in ideological battles with 'green' types. The notion that philosophers have concluded that any preference for nature in any context is fallacious, is absurd. The page is in need of attention from a mature, experienced philosophy editor.
	Lisnabreeny (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)		Lisnabreeny (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
		+	:I pov tagged the article and put this up to discuss/attract attention not knowing better process. On 29th Jan I put up the del subst tag. Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)<!-- added per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 -->
	: If you can provide reliable sources which dispute its status as fallacious then you're welcome to include them. However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather the claim, or more commonly the implication, that purely because something is "natural" it is good or benign and because something is "unnatural" it must be bad or harmful; its use is common among snake oil pedlers who imply that the naturalness of their products is proof enough of their efficacy and safety rather than any empirical evidence. Regardless, the claim that this page is somehow just an ideological dig at environmentalists is ridiculous.		: If you can provide reliable sources which dispute its status as fallacious then you're welcome to include them. However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather the claim, or more commonly the implication, that purely because something is "natural" it is good or benign and because something is "unnatural" it must be bad or harmful; its use is common among snake oil pedlers who imply that the naturalness of their products is proof enough of their efficacy and safety rather than any empirical evidence. Regardless, the claim that this page is somehow just an ideological dig at environmentalists is ridiculous.
	:By the way Wikipedia convention is for new discussions to go at the bottom of the page. (moved) 94.194.86.160 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)		:By the way Wikipedia convention is for new discussions to go at the bottom of the page. (moved) 94.194.86.160 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
		+	::This is first objection after the page was put up for deletion 1 week and redirected to naturalistic fallacy#appeal_to_nature from editor who reverted it and other small edits to naturalistic fallacy.Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)<!-- added per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 -->
	:: "However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather.. "		:: "However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather.. "
-	- That was my summary of the misunderstanding which this page is built on, not my explaination of naturalistic fallacy (clearly).	+	- That was my summary of the misunderstanding which this page is built on, not my explaination of naturalistic fallacy (clearly).
		+	<s><!-- added strikeout per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 -->
	:: I do not need to cite reliable sources to draw attention to the problems in this page, firstly because this page cites no reliable sources, secondly, because basic experience of philosophy would inform that this typical statement is wrong: "This fallacy is exemplified, for instance, on some labels and advertisements for alternative herbal remedies."		:: I do not need to cite reliable sources to draw attention to the problems in this page, firstly because this page cites no reliable sources, secondly, because basic experience of philosophy would inform that this typical statement is wrong: "This fallacy is exemplified, for instance, on some labels and advertisements for alternative herbal remedies."
	:: FYI Advertisements, are not philosophical statements. If they were then "fresh food is good for you" would be as much of an example as an appeal to nature as that one i just quoted and the many other 'greenwash' political statements which this article contains.		:: FYI Advertisements, are not philosophical statements. If they were then "fresh food is good for you" would be as much of an example as an appeal to nature as that one i just quoted and the many other 'greenwash' political statements which this article contains.
	::To clarify; 'fresh' is philosophically speaking -a natural property, the naturalistic fallacy states that it is not 'freshness' which can confer goodness, yet as we can see in many contexts, freshness can very often be said to be a good thing ) The mistake you have made is confusing metaphysics with physics, and the natures of things, with natural things.		::To clarify; 'fresh' is philosophically speaking -a natural property, the naturalistic fallacy states that it is not 'freshness' which can confer goodness, yet as we can see in many contexts, freshness can very often be said to be a good thing ) The mistake you have made is confusing metaphysics with physics, and the natures of things, with natural things.
	::I believe this page is so bad, that no self respecting wp:philosophy editor will attempt to defend it, even if they were politicaly inclined to. I had it up for deletion for over a week, and no one defended. It was an experienced editor, who redirected it to the properly written naturalistic fallacy article, which can be seen to explicity refute this articles position.		::I believe this page is so bad, that no self respecting wp:philosophy editor will attempt to defend it, even if they were politicaly inclined to. I had it up for deletion for over a week, and no one defended. It was an experienced editor, who redirected it to the properly written naturalistic fallacy article, which can be seen to explicity refute this articles position.
-	It is odd that you are aware of wp convention, yet editing from an unregistered ip. Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)	+	It is odd that you are aware of wp convention, yet editing from an unregistered ip.</s><!-- added strikeout per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
		+	<!-- added per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 -->
		+	After Page Was Resurrected'
		+	<!-- collapsed for confusing the timeline and duplicating material per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 -->
		+	{{cob|Duplicate material}}
		+	Of this article's two external sources, the most qualified (yet still unreviewed) writes:[6]
		+
		+	<blockquote>"Nonetheless, one may still feel that there is something right about some appeals to nature. For instance, a diet rich in natural foods-such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains-is probably better than one based on more artificial foods-such as candy, pastries, and sausages. Also, it seems likely that a natural lifestyle-that is, one based on a natural diet and exercise-is in general a healthier one than a sedentary life spent watching television and eating doughnuts.
		+
		+	These forms of argument could be treated as rules of thumb which admit some exceptions, but are still reliable enough to be useful."</blockquote>
		+
		+	This quote exemplifies the very casual language and non-philosophical reasoning which this whole article is based on. I nominate for it to be deleted and redirected or replaced with the adequately checked section in: naturalistic fallacy. Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
		+	<!-- collapsed for confusing the timeline and duplicating material per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 -->
		+	{{cot}}
		+
		+	<!-- added per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 -->
		+	Full Deletion Discussion/ Expert Review
		+
		+	{{small|WP:REFACTOR: The above unsigned text was added by Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)}}<!-- added per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 -->
	== Deletion / Expert Review ==		== Deletion / Expert Review ==

It beggars belief that you think this diff shows you 'correcting' my 'errors' As i already pointed out, in this diff YOU scrambled the timeline, YOU duplicated a large chunk, struck half it out, put some of it in extended content, and then blamed me and put a big lecture in my talk page. So i missed putting templates on, that would fair enough to correct and 'help out' with. But performing this incompetent mess and blaming me for it, and then repeatedly calling me LIAR - you are OUT OF YOUR TREE. You never have even specifically stated the 'lies' i am supposed to be making here.

A law onto your self - you are worse for wikipedia than spam, you are a disingenous wikibully. I do not have time to figure out the process right now, but sooner or later, you are going to get noticed. Lisnabreeny (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Appeal to nature, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Machine Elf, since you have provided so much instruction to me on WP protocol. Could you advise on the best course of action to take up moderation issues with an editor whose attentions one finds unreasonable? Lisnabreeny (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do seek advice from an administrator Lisnabreeny.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, since you are now calling me a liar on my own talk page, this situation has to be reviewed Lisnabreeny (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

{subst:ANI-notice}

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Argument

I have expanded the scope of this article from a focus on purely formal logical arguments (deductive & inductive), to include philosophical arguments in general. As well, I have added a section on World disclosing arguments that you may find interesting. It is the only section in the article that is consistently sourced, and I have been revising it and including more information based on feedback. However, Philogos has proposed deleting or moving the section to another article, and in fact just deleted it. Machine Elf has agreed with him that it doesn't belong.

I have restored it based on the fact that no one has responded to my long-suffering attempts at satisfying others' criticisms.

Care to take a look? The information in it also bears on Appeal to nature, and there is an extensive argument about embodiment and human nature that Charles Taylor makes in his essay on transcendental arguments, that I want to try to work into that article.

Thanks, Walkinxyz (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)