User talk:Sinclair Banks

Ad hominem
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines before making such edits. Your edits, no exaggeration, literally violated every single one of Wikipedias main guidelines as described by my edit summary. Wretchskull (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Neither described nor justified are: 1) “horribly formatted”, 2) “non-encyclopedic”, 3) WPUNDUE, 4) WPMOS, and 5) the implied prejudiced assertion that the claimed new discovery in logic is false, which the critic could not know, either way, as not having read the discovery.  Restore edit please.  Thank you.  Sinclair Banks.


 * I'm sorry, but I'm not going to restore it. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines before making such edits. It is not encyclopedically written, it doesn't adhere to encyclopedic WP:MOS, and it is a primary source. It doesn't matter if the text is good or bad, is written by a child or a Harvard professor, if it is a primary source, it shouldn't be there. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. All best - Wretchskull (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, your mere assertions and re-assertions of violations I find tedious because I have spent thirty years as a trial lawyer debunking mere assertions. Nothing personal. Please specify which words in my edit offend which Wiki guideline, and explain precisely how the words constitute the particular violation. I suggest a table with three columns: 1) a quote of offending words, 2) a quote of the language violated in the Wiki guideline, and 3) an explanation of how the quoted offending words violate the quoted Wiki guideline. I have read the guidelines and see no violation in my edit.

For instance, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event ...", says Wiki. So, under Wiki's "event" requirement for something to be a primary source, what "event" is the "event" that makes my edit a primary source ? I see no such event in my edit, nor therefore any "original materials that are close to an event". My edit concerns logic, which is not an event but rather is an abstraction, a realm of forms of argument, but certainly not an event. “Logic takes care of itself; all we have to do is to look and see how it does it.” Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), Notebooks 1914-1916, entry for 13th October 1914, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe, (1961 Basil Blackwell publisher). What I claim to exist - a fallacy of a specified composition - either does exist, or does not exist, and this existence or non-existence is entirely independent both of me and of anything I have written, and depends entirely upon logic, which "takes care of itself", and which pre-existed me, and will continue to exist after I'm dead. "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.", says Wiki. Not only is logic not an event, but I am not "involved" at all in logic, as logic exists entirely separately from me, and from everyone else.

But now suppose my edit is a primary source. The edit cites, for support, to my book, which has been reputably published. "[P]rimary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.", says Wiki. So you are incorrect about Wiki where you write: "if it is a primary source, it shouldn't be there", which incorrectly implies that primary source material is not allowed in Wiki.

My edit merely states my claim of a discovery in logic, which is sufficiently careful for Wiki, because notice of that claimed discovery alerts a reader to use their critical intelligence regarding the claim, rather than just uncritically accept the "discovery" as a fact. Any rational reader of my edit can, if interested, judge whether the claimed discovery in logic is true or not. All that is required to judge the claim is access to the published book and rational reflection about its claimed discovery, not any specialized knowledge.

Therefore, restore the edit please. Thank you. Sinclair Banks.


 * Please read carefully, as I will probably not comment again; this is getting repetitive. I have nothing against you or the book, and the actual contents of the book are not of my main concern. There are myriads of encyclopedic and Wikipedia style violations with the edit that I couldn't even exhaust half of them without making this page look like an online archive of Hamlet. If you are planning on staying here on Wikipedia to contribute, it would be best if you started with Help:Introduction and learn how to write encyclopedically. If not, please keep in mind that not everything can be added to Wikipedia without realizing that rules and guidelines exist. Again, this is not about the book or its contents or about you. All best - Wretchskull (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)