User talk:Sum1nil

March 2022
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Misanthropy have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2022 (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: Misanthropy was changed by Sum1nil (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.885408 on 2022-03-11T06:01:02+00:00


 * How to I ask for citations for a quotation? Sum1nil (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Warning
Your recent editing history at Misanthropy 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the lateness of my reply.
 * I.e. stands for id est, which means "that is." It introduces a rewording or a clarification. The current version reads:
 * These flaws are seen as ubiquitous, i.e. possessed by almost everyone to a serious degree and not just by a few extreme cases. They are also held to be entrenched , meaning that there is either no or no  easy  way to rectify them short of a complete transformation of the dominant way of life. 
 * This is not the definition of ubiquitous nor does the word clarify anything. It conflates a simple term with another without stating the anthropomorphic nature of the authors definition as opposed to a technical one. Sum1nil (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * An example usage of ubiquitous in reference to Staphylococcus epidermidis They are ubiquitous in nature, and is part of the normal flora of the skin and less commonly the mucosa flora.
 * No "Entrenched", No Easy, No Hard, No Human Emotion is involved just facts like the example above. I propose that the person who wishes to alter simple definitions provide evidence that Websters Dictionary is incorrect.
 * I cannot say how disappointed it is to see fluff has been added to a very simple definition. The editor should provide further evidence of the necessity of the non-use of a standard definition in the English language because the burden of proof lies on that person not common knowledge or Websters.
 * The very fact and implied threating of a ban for some lame 'edit' war over a definition is quite simply ludicrous. This is why Wikipedia was never allowed to be used as a source in writing term papers. That was true in 2000 and is true in 2022. Sum1nil (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any snark. I am only concerned about Wikipedia at this time due to the large amount of people that truly rely on it. I feel a machine learning program that determines deviation from actually defined words is needed. I read a tutorial in python in which the emotionality or what the authors just stated as pattern matching the words in the text to determine sentiment analysis. I believe the technology exists far in advance of the python tutorials I tried and they became mostly accurate on my home pc.
 * I am worried, due to the large amount of people that use Wikipedia, in part, as fact checking. I completely agree that Wikipedia is the last bastion of shared knowledge we sometimes have. Current events would seem to indicate certain subjects may currently be altered, not for the public good or even snark, but to mislead others in dangerous ways. I am not stating that I in any way know more than others especially since it can be demonstrated that I do not. I assume my reaction to an emotional definition was itself emotional. Sum1nil (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sum1nil (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Sum1nil and thank you for trying to contribute to the article. The terms you mentioned are technical terms used in the academic literature on misanthropy, see the sources cited in the section "Definition". That the way they are defined there does not completely coincide with how they are used in other fields is no fault of our article. I would suggest that you take the wikipedia guidelines on edit wars seriously. The fact that you disagree with certain contents of an article is not a sufficient reason for starting an edit war. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)