User talk:Pleiotrop3

debra winger

Hey Ian, saw your revert. I guess I should have clarified in the summary that the Fox reference makes no mention of accusations, it says he took a plea bargain to avoid more serious charges. Grindty (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Grindty: OK, although it would be better to phrase things more precisely from the source e.g. "plead guilty" etc. Ian (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

memcached

Hi Ian, can you explain, why you reverted my change to "memcached"? GE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.110.249.193 (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@188.110.249.193: I thought it was confusing because it uses a client-server based architecture, not client-only. Using 'client-based' in the lead could be misinterpreted as related to end-user browser client, whereas the proper context is that of a server cluster. That's my understanding anyway, feel free to revert. Ian (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

hi, I made a change concerning D. Pingree's biography of Abu Masar that was reverted. We cannot simply omit Richard Lemay's study on the Liber Introductiorii maioris ad scientiam etc (Naples, Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1995, 9 vols.) In vol. I Lemay proves that Abu Masar was Persian and that he must have counted solar yearsas it was costumary in Persia not lunar years. If we count backwards from they year 886, when supposedly Abu Masar turned 100 years old, this gives us March 786 (vol. 1, p. 8, see also note 14 that dismisses Pingree's unscientific reading of a passage that he thought gave Abu Masar's horoscope). Moreover, in the Mudakarat, Abu Said Shadan has Abu Masar say that he didn't know the exact date of his birth, so he could not have had a horscope of his birth (apud Lemay, p. 9). It would be advisable to put a question mark on the date of birth in the main article and rely more on Lemay's scholarship. Pingree's shcolarship on the subject seems to be very dubious, and unfortunately it became part of the doxa. Thank you! Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.254.153 (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@160.39.254.15: Here is the revision. Scholarly disagreements would best be addressed on the article's talk page or as a footnote next to the contested date. Editor comments cannot be part of the article body. Template:Circa and a footnote summarizing the info above should be fine. Ian (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Slippery Slope

The article wasn't better. It's currently incorrect. There is no "fallacious form" of the slippery slope argument. It can be used fallaciously, but the form itself is still valid. What happens is that another fallacy is used, such as a false dichotomy, in the conditional chain leading to the conclusion. The intermediary steps are false, making the argument unsound but the argument itself is valid logic. The way the article is currently written is factually incorrect, and should probably be changed, as it causes confusion in people thinking that the slippery slope itself is or can be fallacious on its own.

I've reverted back to your edit but interjecting "but it..." in the middle of the lead's first sentence really breaks up the flow and causes confusion. The first sentence should ideally just cover the definition. The follow-up on fallacious usage is left until the end of the lead. Ian (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

error

You removed my train edit but I was only following the RFC results. Please put it back. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

oh, I see you reverted using a tool but you forgot to read the Talk pages to see the RFC results. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)