Jump to content

User talk:Freoh/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

August 2022

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Democracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization Talk 02:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm not "changing content" at all, just adding maintenance tags. I've been starting multiple discussions in Talk:Democracy, but people are drive-by de-tagging rather than discussing on the talk page. What would you recommend I do? This template is unhelpful, as I'm already using the talk page and WP:BRD with no success. Freoh (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

There is a discussion of your edits on Noticeboard currently taking place. [1]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quantum computing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superposition. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed Freoh (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

A better source than the U.S. Congress?

I kinda smiled when I saw you wanted a better source for the last statement in the Preamble section of the Constitution article. Honestly, I'm not thrilled with this paragraph. I didn't like the original assertions along these lines - especially the amount of attention that was paid to not much. But I worked them in because it is an objective account of what the Congress's constitutional research team has to say and I hoped to satisfy the original editor(s). So I'm genuinely curious as to what you believe the weakness is here. What's genuine is I'm only interested in learning more because I believe it'll serve me wel elsewhere. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I'm in the process of adding a little more and in fine tuning the wording, but nothing major. Just to let you know. Allreet (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I added that tag because the source has a conflict of interest. If you want to say that the Preamble is considered an important part the nation's constitutional dialogue by promoting insight into the nature of America's governmental system, then that's an opinion that should be attributed, ideally to an independent source.      — Freoh 20:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I just saw that this was your rationale when I viewed the template in edit mode. I get it, though I have faith in the scholars who serve both sides of the aisle, even if they favor a status quo more in their interest than "we, the people's". That said, I try not to rely on single sources when issues are more complex, and fortunately in this case sources abound so it was no problem finding one that closely concurs. Meanwhile, I've left your template intact, and if it still stands in another day or two, I'll supplement the text with an additional source and/or rewrite. And thanks for the reply - it serves the purpose I mentioned. Allreet (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that the National Constitution Center is much better, given that it was created by the U.S. Congress.      — Freoh 01:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

[Here https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/what-is-science/science-aims-to-explain-and-understand/] is a source for the role of institutions, especially in science. I am replying privately because I am trying not to sound insulting to you. The sources you seek are probably in the field of situated cognition but you would have to seek them in a discreet way, so as not to insult anyone. Motivation is a tough field to study. I find that the psychological experiment designs are devious, and thus questionable. So I stay away from the subject. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that modern science is heavily influenced by modern institutions, but I don't think that means that scientific reasoning didn't exist before these institutions. I'm trying to stick to information explicitly stated in sources, which put the origins of science dozens of millennia ago.      — Freoh 11:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Review of David Graeber's last book

I thought you might be interested in the NY Times review of David Graeber's, Pirate Enlightenment: Or the Real Libertalia. It's dated January 24, but appeared in this past Sunday's Book Review. Allreet (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Use experience as a tool

I understand that as a new and inexperienced editor you want to make large, meaningful changes to important articles, but I don't think your approach will have any success. As a new editor, you lack a lot of important experience in copy-editing articles, use of sources, and leading/starting discussions with wide participation. I say this not to discourage you, but rather to encourage you to work alongside experienced editors in the topic areas you want to work in to draft RFCs before you launch them. If I were you, before starting the U.S. Constitution RFC I would have asked editors that have written featured articles in the topic area (s) as well as in the most active relevant WikiProjects (such as Politics) for help in the wording of the RFC. Doing so will help you make better proposals. In any case, hope you enjoy the rest of the week ^u^ — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, in retrospect I should have worded it differently (and limited its scope more). I will keep this in mind for future RfCs. I was trying to follow the instructions, so maybe you should edit those with your suggestions.      — Freoh 01:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hi, I'm hoping we can identify some common understanding. Right now, I'm off to the pool, so I may not respond right away. We also walk to the lake everyday. As you may have guessed, I have a science background (due to the US national emphasis in 1957). Is there something I can do? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

One of the benefits I got from trying to answer you was realizing an application of skolemization could have answered a potential issue. But that potential answer really belonged on stackoverflow or elsewhere, not on a WP page. Lambda calculus can be a very high-level design language (when expressed in something like Haskell). But there is no one for me to talk to in those languages. I am currently reading Bartosz Milewski (2019) Category Theory for Programmers. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I am familiar with lambda calculus, but I still do not see its relevance to our discussion at Talk:Science. I think that your communication style involves a lot of analogies that I am having trouble following, and I think it would be helpful if you could be more direct. Which aspect of Wikipedia's neutrality policy do you think I am violating? Is there any information that I have presented that you find unreliable or explicitly contradicted by other sources? I feel like bringing category theory into this discussion would only lead to improper synthesis.      — Freoh 13:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I am trying to find common ground, so that we might reach common understanding. I have tried different formulations, ranging from very concrete to very abstract (e.g.,p→q), but I observe that you seem not to care about my (or other editors') formulations, except when they contain a keyword: neutrality.
It takes work for me to formulate responses, about which you seem not to care, except as they pertain to an agenda. If the goal is to attack a position, then I can understand the tactic. However if the goal is to understand my response, then we have a chance to attain a common understanding. OK?
Right now it appears to me that you see a p→q formulation as not relevant. However if cause→effect is meaningful, might you agree that the formulation could be relevant?
-- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I am trying to understand which cause and effect you refer to. Are you talking generally about the evolution of causal cognition in humans? Are you saying that I as an editor have not provided a good cause for the changes that I want to make? I tried to ask you earlier what the variables p and q stood for, but your Galileo analogy only confused me further.      — Freoh 01:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
If we were to start with situated cognition (5Ws) using our sensory systems first, for immediate survival (pain, heat, proprioception, touch, taste, smell, hearing, sight, ...), we might formulate immediate concepts. Gradually we might posit more distant, i.e., less proximate or dangerous threats/opportunities to our longer-term survival (embodied cognition). Here I take the cue of Francis Crick: he considered the visual system's V1, the primary visual cortex as the simplest pathway for understanding the brain. I should mention that Crick FC (and Koch C) gradually deduced that the claustrum was a basic part for understanding our facility of awareness (see default mode network), before Crick's death (these are not random facts; researchers have been able to switch a human's consciousness on/off by probing the claustrum).
The labyrinth was Galileo's simile for the bewilderment of the scientific researcher trying to solve some conundrum.
Attacking the conundrum from another direction, one might use abstract parameters p, q, r, s, ... in place of the senses mentioned above. I was hoping you might agree that ((p→q)→r)→s constitute a form with arguments p→q (a functional form), nested in another functional form; the forms might then moot linguistic sentences, for formulating hypotheses, which could then be compared with data. C.S. Peirce has found a solution ((p→q)→p)→p to the pqrs form. Peirce began his research process with categories. I didn't mean to imply that Milewski's book is part of my argument; I mentioned it as my reading. For example Needham's Science and Civilisation in China was formative for me in 1976, and I sometimes fall back on it (2023).
My critique about affirming the consequent was about any premature fixation of meaning to an arbitrary part of a linguistic form. More work would have to be done, first. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
What arbitrary part of a linguistic form are you referring to? My arguments have been more focused on archaeology and anthropology rather than linguistics. Are you saying that I am affirming the consequent? If so, what is the conditional statement if p then q that I am invalidly converting into if q then p?      — Freoh 13:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. We are exploring a causal map. I believe that we are finally communicating based on common ground. So if the causal map is (Gärdenfors,Lombard) → (hominin/predator tracking)) [call this '(p→q)'], I would, based on my reading of Gärdenfors & Lombard, say their reasoning is valid. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Busy lately

I see that a few different editors have tried to contact me lately. I have been unexpectedly busy in real life, and I will try to respond within the next few days.  — Freoh 21:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Barbenheimer

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Barbenheimer, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. SurferSquall (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Acts of Peter and the Twelve on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  • The above ANI notice has now closed Freoh.[2] Going ahead with Drmies' advise is prudent. I will be very blunt in saying that in case a report lands at ANI in your name for the same reasons, it would be very hard to avoid a block. Please do not go down that path. Thank you, Lourdes 06:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
    Could you be more specific about which same reasons you refer to? Sending WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE warnings? Proposing editing restrictions? Commenting at Talk:Constitution of the United States? People in that thread seemed upset about all of these, so I would like to know what you think is a blockable offense and if you are effectively banning me from a particular area of Wikipedia.  — Freoh 13:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
    Hi Freoh,
    I expect it's confusing for you that you didn't get clarification here, and I think you've consistently gotten vague feedback followed by refusal to clarify (eg, diff – although I suppose no one is obligated to clarify things for you.) I actually think your behaviour is less problematic than many other editors' behaviour that are more generally accepted by the community. I really value your contributions to the encyclopedia, and I would be very disappointed if these rather vague threats materialised into sanctions that prevented you from helping out.
    So I'd like to help interpret other editors' concerns (and I may not be able to do this well, though I did follow the ANI): I would say that your biggest risk of retribution is with your first two guesses about WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE and generally with attempts to correct other editors' behaviour. From what I can tell, it's not usually possible to call out poor behaviour from well-established editors, or from groups of editors defending entrenched systemic biases, without just getting locked out. (I'm aware that this can mean compromising a moral position for pragmatic reasons, and I respect you if you wouldn't or couldn't do that even on the internet! I just think you'll get banned eventually, and I would be sad about that.) I hope this helps, or at least isn't a terribly offensive suggestion. Larataguera (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    ...and don't feel obligated to reply to this. Last time I said something on your talk page, your response was used against you at ANI and I felt bad about it. Larataguera (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for the message, Larataguera! Sorry for not responding sooner; after Davey2010 tried to ban me for making only 36% of my edits to mainspace,[1] I have been trying to limit myself to a single non-mainspace edit per day, so I waited to reply here. I agree that Wikipedia has serious problems with well-established editors getting a free pass on poor conduct, and it frustrates me that confronting editors making personal attacks tends to upset people more than the personal attacks themselves. It seems that my only recourse is to spend years becoming a well-established editor myself, but I wish that Wikipedia guidelines were better at documenting this hierarchy. In my view, it weakens Wikipedia's third and fourth pillars to hold administrators to a lower standard of conduct. I see far too many interactions where a newcomer behaves better than an administrator but ends up getting indefinitely blocked.  — Freoh 13:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Special:Diff/1158741770

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Do not refactor my comments at Drmies's Talk page, and if I'd wanted to ping the editor I would have.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I interpreted your comments as personal attacks,[1] and Wikipedia policy permits their removal.[2] It is good practice to notify Pariswikiae when discussing their conduct, rather than talking about them behind their back.[3]  — Freoh 16:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Your "interpretation" is nonsense, and it's not up to you whom I ping and whom I don't. Just stay out of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

InfiniteNexus (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, Freoh! Have a prosperous new year! InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  1. ^ Special:Diff/1165172838
  2. ^ WP:RPA
  3. ^ WP:NOTIFY
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freoh/Archive_1&oldid=1236093608"