User talk:Regtic

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Regtic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Content[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Argument from authority, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the citation has nothing to do with the claim and I stated as much. Secondly, you reverted all the work I added to the overview which is totally unacceptable. I'm reverting this change. If you want to justify why that source supports the claim made in the article, then respond to the reversion that I made appropriately and we can have a discussion about it instead of just ignoring it and reverting my change. Regtic (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued removal of content[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Argument from authority. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a valid reason was given, the onus is on you to explain why this was not a valid reason. Please respond with why you think this is a valid citation. Furthermore, even if you were correct about this citation, you would still be breaking policy by removing the other content which was added to the overview. Claiming that this is a "personal essay" is not a valid reason and is legitimate grounds for escalating this. If you continue, it is you who will be blocked from editing without further warning. Please see Wikipedia:Fictitious_references: "If any fictitious references are found on a page, they, and any information they solely support, shall be immediately removed upon discovery. Editors who find such a reference are encouraged to examine the full article to determine if it meets one or more criteria for deletion, even possibly speedy deletion." Regtic (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source not supporting claim[edit]

I think the root of the issue is a misunderstanding of why the source is being cited. The claim is "others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument".

The source is cited as an example of one of those "others". It's less saying "according to..." and more saying "like this one". I hope that helps clear up why it belongs in the page. Moltenflesh (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the study which suggests that others consider it to always be a fallacy though. There are people who identify the fallacy in examples. There's nothing saying that these people always consider it to be a fallacy. Please provide a page number to specify which section you believe supports this claim. Regtic (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not done on page 330 and Table 1 where it is discussed as and listed with common fallacies such as circular reason and ad hominem? Moltenflesh (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that needs to be supported is "others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument". This table just shows that it is a fallacy that appears in argumentation. The contention is not whether some believe that the fallacy can appear, I think everyone agrees with that. The issue is about the claim that it is always fallacious to use the opinion of an authority on a topic as evidence for one's claim. Regtic (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

Your recent editing history at Argument from authority 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.
You must discuss at Talk:Argument from authority#Definition before making any further edits to the article, no matter what the merits are or what interpretation of policy you think is right. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this - you need to start using the talk page of the article concerned if you are reverted, not the talk page of editors who reverted you -----Snowded ^TALK 08:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]