- 1 Welcome
- 2 Philosophical definition of Design
- 3 Disambiguation link notification for March 8
- 4 Reverting at Digital
- 5 "Digital"
- 6 Disambiguation link notification for July 17
- 7 Computerize
- 8 Disambiguation link notification for August 4
- 9 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 10 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Philosophical definition of Design
Back in 2007, you changed the following line in Design:
I'm working on a PhD on the subject of the Philosophy of Design and was wondering whether you might recall where you got this intriguing definition from. Your revision seems a rather fundamental change to the older entry.
- I didn't get it from any source, else I would have attributed it. Since the original line wasn't sourced, I figured it was fair game to change it, one user's interpretation vs another's.
- The word "or" left the possibility of purposeless patterns open to interpretation. I didn't think it was accurate to imply that a pattern without a purpose is design. A pattern could be completely accidental or random.
- I also moved the reference to teleology to a more specific paragraph, because I thought the wikipedia article was narrower in scope than "purpose" (to include synthetic design) at the time. The teleology article has since been rewritten. But I still think the definition of "teleology"  raises too many existential questions to keep the design article objective. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Web design, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Widgets (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.
Continuing to revert while a discussion at Talk:Digital#Disambiguation page is going on may be held against you. Anytime somebody makes a disputed edit while citing WP:IAR it raises concerns. Why should you be the only person allowed to ignore all rules? What about the people on the other side of the dispute? Should they be expected to follow the rules while you do not? We do have a policy on WP:Edit warring and admins are standing by to enforce it. Those admins are unlikely to accept IAR as an excuse. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't consider myself the only person to be allowed to WP:IAR. I'm the editor who's had my efforts reverted without consensus. The editor who removed my edits citing a WP:MOS was ignoring the rule of WP:BRD and WP:NOCONSENSUS. I'm just trying to get the editor who initially removed my edits to discuss each link removed on a case-by-case bases before removing them repeatedly as they have done. I'm willing to be educated here. I want to know exactly why the editor who is removing my links thinks they are in violation of a rule or not keeping with the a guide. I simply don't see how what I did was wrong or harmful. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reflowable document, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Print (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.
Hi. I saw the changes you made in relation to computerize, they created a big amount of links to a disambiguation page and that is not a desirable things. Since you are already working on it and have knowledge of the subject it would be great if you have the time to change the incoming links to point to the respective article. Aisteco (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I will look into it. I know that the wikipedia community will correct the links gradually and eventually over time, but I will make it a higher priority when I find time to devote to wikipedia editing. Maybe a I'll learn how to use bots. I just don't want to oversimplify the meaning if there is more specific articles to link to. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grid (graphic design), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Text (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.
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) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)