User talk:75.149.204.97

September 2023
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Indeterminacy debate in legal theory, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been on Wikipedia a long time. There are no actual rules or policies, such as entailed from the terms of service. Also, I do not appreciate you falsely policing me. Your argument is nothing more than an interpretation. I dare you to resolve the interpretation as reasonable relative to the content of the Wikipage that I'm editing. 75.149.204.97 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I assure you there are policies on Wikipedia. For example, if you click on the link to the policy about original research, you'll see that it reads "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." AntiDionysius (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah? Fascinating. How did you manage to overcome the indeterminism relative to the matter to ascertain the said policy as valid, thus signifying that it exists as a policy? Dennis Blewett (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You did resolve whether or not there was indeterminism as to the policy, right? I mean, there is also a contradiction called "ignore all rules." You've failed to prove-up that your so-called policy is entailed from the terms of service. Dennis Blewett (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You can post all the legalese you want; the reality continues to be that it is policy. Please follow it. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's policy because you say so? You've failed to provide legitimate evidence for being a policy. I'm arguing that you engaged in article vandalism. Furthermore, you've failed to specify what aspects of the article were wrong. My guess is that you failed to see that it was me, the user had been significantly adding onto the article, and discriminated against the edits for being anonymously-based. Dennis Blewett (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The edits don't have to be wrong to be in violation of the original research policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you have the authority to qualify that it violates the "original research policy"? Your commentary on my edit involved "it appears that you have added original research." Yet you've failed to specify what has failed to "appear" as "original research" and instead changed my edits. That's not very reasonable at all. Do you think that's reasonable? Dennis Blewett (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not have any unilateral authority to decide what violates that or any policy, no. I am simply informing you that content does not need to be untrue to violate the policy. That's not a judgement on my part, it's within the text of the policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You've failed to argue how it actually violates the policy. There has been the argument from you of "appearance," namely that the content appears to have violated the policy. Furthermore, the text of the policy, presumptively, does not dictate whether or not the policy has been violated. If you want to argue that, I suggest you figure out a reasonable resolve to the rule-following paradox. "Apperance" of violating a policy is not good enough. If you're questioning where I got the idea of "normative indeterminacy," It's from the Kaehler article that I've referenced in the bibliography. I didn't think that it was reasonable to source that matter because he doesn't really describe what normative indeterminacy is, whereby I managed to circumstantially piece together an interpretation of what "normative indeterminacy" is with wikilinks to related topics to prove-up the interpretation of "normative indeterminacy."
 * It becomes very gray when you want to argue something as "original research." The concept of "normative indeterminacy," as I introduced it, was not meant to be original research. I'm very unsure of how to revert everything you undid, and I'd much appreciate it you reversed your edit of my edits, please. Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sourcing something because it doesn't appear in any source you can find is exactly the problem. If you can't find a source describing what "normative indeterminacy" is, it shouldn't appear in the article. "Piecing together" an interpretation is also a problem, that being exactly the kind of thing the policy against synthesis of sources is meant to address. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Irony factor: That's your interpretation based on information that you've pieced together. I don't think you grasp how Wikipedia has been built over time. Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for that. The issue remains, though. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What issue? You've failed to describe the issue. You edited the article with a commentary of "Unsourced." That seems to be a personal issue. The matter, as it seems, was not a violation of the so-called "original research policy," but namely that you were dissatisfied with the material being unsourced. Something being unsourced that does not entail that it violates an original research policy. If we take the argument of "Unsourced" at face value, your problem has not been related to the original research policy but a matter of one or more citations. But in relation to that, you've failed to argue why citations should be added, such as why it should be indeed a requirement. Were the matter simply a concern about violating copyright, I could "understand." But I deny having violated copyright law. Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have to and am not interested in trying to prove to you that sourcing is an inherent good. It's also Wikipedia policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you refuse to address your issue of "Unsourced," then I will consider that the edit was unmerited, thus vandalism whether intentional or not. The accuser bears the burden of proof. A paraphrasing of your argument: "These edits have been inherently wrong because they are unsourced."
 * For any administrator/moderator of whom is observering this topic:
 * Motion to dismiss dispute because there was, is, and will be insufficient evidence to the contrary (such as a failure to address the charge). Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group."
 * - Consensus
 * It may be interpreted through your argument "I don't have to and am not interested in trying to prove to you that sourcing is an inherent good" that you are refusing to "...work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense..."
 * To any admin/mod:
 * Motion to revert edit because there was, is, and will be insufficient evidence. Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Correction: what has appeared as original research Dennis Blewett (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that most of what you've added in the past 2-3 weeks constitutes original research. The complete lack of inline citations makes me worry that the text does not constitute a summary of the position of various secondary sources, but that it constitutes novel scholarship or the synthesis of various sources.
 * It is possible I'm wrong, and that though there aren't citations pointing out which part comes from which source, it is indeed derived very closely from those sources. That would be great; in that case it would just be a matter of adding those citations to the text, and everyone would be happy. I am raising the issue with you in order to find out if that's the case. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've noticed there to be an issue with the Kaehler article that I've uploaded to archive.org that is cited in the bibliography. I've been considered whether or not it managed to become public access. I'll see if I can deal with the issue of public access later today or sometime this week. Also, I do not definitively know that I got the idea of normative indeterminacy from Kaehler. The term was learned from the Kaehler article, but my interpretation of the term (as to how he used) it was mine. The use of the concept in the wikiarticle was not meant to be original research. Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, this is exactly the problem; you're not meant to interpret things in a way not supported by any sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How and in what way does a source itself manage to support an interpretation of anything? I don't think such happens.
 * Have you studied the rule-following paradox? Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it does happen all of the time and find the idea that it doesn't kind of bizarre. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You've not responded to whether or not you've studed the rule-following paradox. So, what is it about a source that provides instructions as to how an interpretation of anything is supposed to occur? Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That lack of response was deliberate. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Norms by themselves are insufficient either as explanations of, or directives to, action. Particular situations do not await human actors, already marked off from each other, labeled as instances of a general norm whose application is in question. Nor can any norm itself step forward to capture its own instances (ibid.)."
 * - Coping in Politics with Indeterminate Norms: A Theory of Enlightened Localism (Chapter 1)
 * Main source: https://sunypress.edu/Books/C/Coping-in-Politics-with-Indeterminate-Norms
 * I am very skeptical of graduate students and their intentions. I do not exist to collect references for graduate students for their theses. Dennis Blewett (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." If that rule were to be strictly followed, Wikipedia would have no content because no one could possibly know exactly what is explicity stated by any source. This seems like the matter would eventually end-up in a fight related to consensus reality. When I say that I've been on Wikipedia a long time, my argument is that I, in general, follow the "ignore all rules" doctrine. There are some rules that you're "supposed to" follow, namely out of respect to make sure that Wikipedia does not get into legal hot water, namely copyright law (to the best of one's ability). A lot of other stuff ends up be interpretated as community standards that are not necessarily true nor should be held in respect. If you've experienced the evolution of Wikipedia, its contents, and the rules related to its content, I think you would get my gist on the matter. Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be very much in favour of getting some wider community input on this issue. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, appealing to consensus doesn't necessarily entail that an opinion by the community is valid. There's also the problem of overcoming skepticism in relation to whether or not consensus was factually reached. I don't feel that you've delved into many of the philosophical problems in the wikiarticle. Not only that, but I've noticed that the way you reverted the article with the Twinkle application may be considered by some as vandalism because of a failure to bring the matter up on the talk page (if but my talk page or some other remedy): What I gather from reading about Twinkle policies, it's advised to not immediately resort to reverting things. Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus is (you guessed it!) also Wikipedia policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a skeptic about memory and citing things, such as being able to ever properly cite where a learned concept from. That's not to say, however, that one would be unable to "refer" to an article that uses a term that one find might be agreeable with an argument a person is making in a wikiarticle. If anything, it seems you're dissatisfied with sources that refer to a topic that I've made. But then again, what if the topic is found throughout the Internet in various sources? For instance, when do you start to qualify something as common sense or unnecessary to cite? Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I posted the reply. Dennis Blewett (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)