Talk:Enaction (philosophy)

MachineElf's recent moves from Enaction (philosophy) to Enactivism

In a series of recent edits MachineElf has undertaken to move large portions of text from Enaction (philosophy) to Enactivism. There has been no explanation on this talk page as to the rationale behind this activity. A possibility is that MachineElf has simply decided to do what he wants. Another possibility is that he has mistakenly confused the consensus so far as supporting this activity. Or perhaps the idea is to move all psychology out of Enaction (philosophy) and leave that article as purely philosophical.

Whatever the reasons, it would be helpful to have them explained here. And it would be polite to hear from Tony what his views are before decimating the article he is working on. I am concerned that the abruptness of MachineElf's actions will adversely affect the interest of the parties involved here, and in turn adversely affect the resulting WP articles. Brews ohare (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, you told me to... you'd better go lay down.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

MachineElf: No, I didn't. Please explain what your goals are here. In particular, what is your idea of the future of Enaction (philosophy)? 04:53, 27 April 2014‎ Brews ohare (talk | contribs)

(edit conflict):That impetuous major edit while discussions were still in progress and no consensus had been reached, was very inconsiderate and disrespectful of the other editors. I restored the article to the version that was being discussed here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, the goal here is to complete your merge and Bob please try to keep your unhelpful commentary to yourself.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews you agreed to two articles. Bob you accepted you proposal did not have support. Tony has obviously disengaged. It was not impetuous it was getting a necessary job done. Restored. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Re "Tony has disengaged" — And I will too, possibly for the same reason. I think I've had a small amount of productive effect here but for me it isn't worth the time spent in this rather hostile and chaotic editing environment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob: You underestimate your influence here. Please hang on a bit longer. Brews ohare (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob: In view of the recent unbridled hostility and bad form on this page, I don't recommend wasting your time here. Brews ohare (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability template

In this edit MachineElf attached a {{notability}} template to this article. Now, one might suggest that this article is a stub, or that its content is better placed in Enactivism, but there is not a solid case for a lack of notability, as is evident from the sources cited. Among them are Stewart Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry Rohde Dictionary of continental philosophy and about 42,000 hits on Google. Brews ohare (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, you can't use searches/sources for Enactivism or Enaction to establish notability for a homonym that means something different from either of those. Because there is no such homonym, this WP:POVFORK must be redirected or deleted.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources are cited, not just the Google search. Brews ohare (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, you can't franchise the real articles' sources for your attempted WP:POVFORK.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the 'real' article is, probably Enactivism, Enaction (philosophy) is supposedly the main article on the philosophical aspects, so having sources for that topic is normal and expected. Brews ohare (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No Brews, that's just a crackpot way of defending your attempts to hijack the original articles' topics.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC).

MachineElf: My interest in this article initially was because I was unaware of Enactivism and saw a need to cover Enaction, for which there was an article Enaction but it covered interfaces. So I began Enaction (philosophy). Later, Tony suggested an interest in using this article to cover the philosophy aspects of enaction. It seems reasonable to let that happen. However, your arbitrary actions and Snowded's comments have sunk that ship and driven off Tony & Bob. So enjoy what you have wrought. Brews ohare (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, no one's stopping them from contributing to the original article, the one it turns out you're trying to sink.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

MachineElf: You have to stop and look at yourself: suggesting I am trying to "sink" Enactivism is ludicrous. I have contributed the majority of the text on that page and have continued to add to it. This, and other silly, vicious and baseless attacks, and accusations of my lying, are 'out of the blue' and way, way outside WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. This kind of extreme behavior should concern you. Brews ohare (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous Brews, you've trying to delete Enaction, not Enactivism.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

MachineElf: I have to say I just don't know what you are talking about. Of course I'm not trying to delete Enactivism. That has never even been mentioned before. Brews ohare (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dubious state of this article suggests its deletion

Although the topic here is the philosophical aspects of enaction, there is very little here about this aspect. For example, psychology of perception presumably is a matter for empirical and scientific analyses, not philosophy. In any event, the philosophical aspects are covered in both broader and deeper discussions in Enactivism. I suggest this article be deleted until such time as the philosophical arguments in Enactivism are deemed to demand an additional article of their own. Brews ohare (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirect: to the section of your choice in Enactivism.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)