User talk:Sparky Macgillicuddy

Welcome!
Hello, Sparky Macgillicuddy, 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:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Argument has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Argument was changed by Sparky Macgillicuddy (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.866538 on 2015-05-28T01:33:37+00:00.

May 2015
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Argument, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. ''Wikipedia works by text being accompanied by reliable sources. You removed well-sourced content, and replaced it with unsourced content.'' Joseph2302 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't. It was indeed well-sourced content, just from 2011 before it got defaced by soeone with an axe to grind. The nature of argument in philosophy and logic is in no way controversial (which ones are *good* is, though). Philogo really did have things stated correctly in his original work. You can go to any--I mean ANY--logic textbooks on this and see what I'm saying. for that matter, you can just go to plato.stanford.edu in its peer-reviewed articles on formal and informal logic. There simply is no subcategory of argument caled a "world-disclosing argument;" arguments, ontologically, are NOT about persuasion; they are about entailment and probability, and that's all they're about. If you want to know why I'm so confident of this, it's because I'm a philosophy professor at a four-year college who specializes in logic (I rather suspect Philogo is, too). I was trying to give my new sources when you reverted the page. I also DID give my justifications for what I was doing in the Talk page on argument.

I am (brand) new to Wikipedia, certainly, so perhaps I inadvertently broke some rule here, but if so, I still don't see it yet. What, exactly, did I do wrong?

Thanks,

Sparky Macgillicuddy (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, since you keep changing it back without giving me the opportunity to finish the edits and provide sources, I'll wait on this until you make some judgment on the matter. You should know, though, that that page is seriously, seriously messed up. What we have there right now is work by a non-logician trying to teach the rest of us the nature of logic and argument. Does that seem reasonable to you? It doesn't to me.Sparky Macgillicuddy (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously, you decided to reply on here rather than the article talkpage? I'll answer at the talkpage, since I specifically said I only wanted 1 conversation about it, not 3. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)