This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Preoccupied now. Will reply later. Brief comment: for main ideas, it is better to have several concordant authoritative sources; I think such concordance is a good component of reliable sourcing. I think that internet references, such as The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, are mostly poor things to cite as 'reliable sources'. Paper-and-ink printed books that can be found in libraries are much preferable. Chjoaygame ( talk) 02:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, of course you are right that the ordinary world consists of actual facts, which are out there, and which constrain the rightness or wrongness of an ontological theory, and which define ordinary reality. No doubt there. Ordinarily, we may leave the qualifier 'ordinary' tacit, but here we may say it, for definiteness.
But there are worlds other than the ordinary world. James Bond lives in one of them, perhaps even, over the decades, in several of them. The integers exist in another world, even in several other worlds. But, in a useful sense, such other worlds are not that of the ordinary reality of the ordinary world. They are fictional, mathematical,..., whatever, worlds. They may even have some real aspects, though not fully defining ordinary reality.
Each of these worlds has its ontology. Indeed, a world may easily have several ontologies, some better than others, for some purposes. Whitehead says "There remains the final reflection, how shallow, puny, and imperfect are efforts to sound the depths in the nature of things. In philosophical discussion, the merest hint of dogmatic certainty as to finality of statement is an exhibition of folly."
Your use of the word 'actual' is key. A basic concept in Whitehead's scheme is that of an 'actual entity'. Things are real insofar as they are founded in actual entities. Does this make sense? Chjoaygame ( talk) 21:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I think you are right to say that science is about more than just truth. For example a lucky guess might be true, but we wouldn't call it scientific. Another important ingredient, I think, is providing justification for the claims. In the empirical sciences this happens through the scientific method which involves sensory observations that in principle every "normal" observer would make when put in the right situation. But this doesn't work for formal sciences like mathematics. And it seems to me that this also doesn't get you very far in philosophy. One way to apply this idea from the empirical sciences is to extend the scientific method by allowing non-sensory evidence, e.g. from what we might call "rational intuition". In this interpretation philosophy and, by extension, ontology are sciences in a wider sense: they aim at truth, and they try to get there by providing evidence and arguments based on this evidence. It's just that they rely on evidence that isn't accepted (but often presupposed) by the empirical sciences. Ideally this evidence is also such that every "normal" rational being would accept it so that there is a general scientific consensus at least on the foundations. This is the part where philosophy is still lacking behind compared to other sciences.
At least that's the view that I find most attractive. But of course it doesn't work if you remove truth from the equation.
I think basically we are in agreement that, for most part, printed publications are more reliable because more effort goes into ensuring the quality and reliability of their contents. Phlsph7 ( talk) 12:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Truth 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Favonian ( talk) 12:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi there Phlsph7, a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I came across the page you created Extended modal realism while doing new pages patrol. I just wanted to drop by to leave a couple of notes. First, I see you used a version of your extended modal realism text to make Modal_realism#Extended_modal_realism. It's generally poor practice for us to host several paragraphs of the same text in two different articles since it makes keeping that text up-to-date more challenging (someone might update one but forget the other). For what it's worth, I'd recommend shortening the material at Modal_realism#Extended_modal_realism to make it more of a high-level summary of Extended modal realism. A second note, the text at Extended modal realism is quite dense. Wikipedia articles should be accessible to a broad audience. Articles on very niche topics need not be understandable to all, but we should aim to write articles that are understood outside of our field to the extent possible. Perhaps you could have a non-philosopher take a look and tell you what parts they struggle with? Otherwise I hope all is well. If you have questions/concerns, you can ask me here, or find faster more experienced help at WP:TEAHOUSE. All the best, Ajpolino ( talk) 20:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ontology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Wolff. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
Requesting you to visit lately initiated Draft:Irrational beliefs, If you find topic interested in, please do support topic expansion. Thanks and warm regards Bookku ( talk) 14:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pleasure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ecstasy.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maya and Atman.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
In Empirical evidence you accused me of proposing original research. I simply presented my understanding of the literature that I consider relevant to the article. It can very well be that this appears original to you, because you have not read these sources, read them but understood them differently or other reasons. Be careful of not to too quickly accuse others of proposing OR in these situations. You also have your understanding of the sources. We all have our understanding of the sources and our view on their reliability, notability, etc. The only way it can work is by being respectful of each others and discuss in good faith our respective understanding. If the discussion fails, we can do an RfC to include more people in the discussion, but we never accuse someone of not discussing properly or of doing OR, etc., only because we don't reach an agreement. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 21:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Intention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donald Davidson.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey, thanks so much for your additions to the logic article. They're huge improvements and I really appreciate the energy you must have spent to make them. I'm going to tinker with the prose and structure to try to make it more accessible. I apologize in advance if this is annoying (I know I sometimes feel that way when people go messing with things I've written!), and I'll be sure to respect the intent behind your contributions and open a discussion before making any substantive changes. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Philosophers in the 20th century started to investigate the "evidential relation", the relation between evidence and the proposition supported by it. User:Phlsph7
Why is this unnecessary? Uni3993 ( talk) 20:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Phlsph7 ( talk) 16:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)In order for something to act as evidence for a hypothesis, it has to stand in the right relation to it, referred to as the "evidential relation" in philosophy.
Was that you who removed my comment on Dunning-Kruger? And if so, why?
This whole Dunning-Kruger thing is a big mistake and most of what is being written about it is quite incorrect -- even though some of it is being written by bright thoughtful people.
I've been watching is since the beginning with some amusement, and am now concerned that it is morphing into serious academic error -- so I would like to hear from you if you don't see that point.
My e-mail is [email protected] (I don't operate anonymously, unlike all the bullshit artists out there) and it would be best if you'd just answer me directly rather than through the cumbersome Wikipedia pages. Best wishes, -dlj.
Umm - why did you revert that revision on Philosophical methodology? The paragraph is unwieldy to say the least - nearly impenetrable. The paragraph is not a paragraph that anyone wrote; rather, it is the accumulation of multiple revisions and additions over several years. People keep adding to it, until it looks like the way it does. "A camel is a horse designed by committee." The fact of the matter is that the paragraph describes multiple, distinct elements - in other words, it is not a coherent paragraph, per se, and as such readily lends itself to a bullet list. The bullet list was perfectly appropriate.
If you have a better suggestion for improving or restructuring this paragraph, by all means make it, but imperiously declaring that a bullet list is not appropriate for the introduction, and then reverting without making any improvement, is, well, imperious. What do you suggest? How would you improve this? How would you make this accessible? And who are you to decide how this article should look?
Zweifel ( talk) 18:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
vague please elaborate Lispenard ( talk) 04:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Definitions of knowledge, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
PRAXIDICAE💕 14:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of knowledge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
PRAXIDICAE💕 14:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you may be blocked from editing. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the old infobox. I just wanted to spruce things up w/ a portrait. -NW Navywalrus ( talk) 07:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
For Importance. What an...important topic! I had honestly never considered it as an encyclopedic subject before but you did a smashing job. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 02:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC) |
The Philosophy Barnstar | ||
For your numerous contributions to the philosophy side of Wikipedia, standing firm against (an) unconstructive deletionist(s). 74.133.120.215 ( talk) 14:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
Here's your original sentence to which you have reverted:
Having eaten the first cookie, Gifre could stop eating cookies, which is the best alternative. But after having tasted one cookie, Gifre would freely decide to continue eating cookies until the whole bag is finished, which would result in a terrible stomach ache and would be the worst alternative.
I don't accept the logic of your reason for reversion, but even if the logic is correct, then in the phrase "could stop eating cookies", could should also be would. I still contend that could is logically and semantically correct in both instances.
I won't undo your reversion (if at all) at least until I hear your side. Harry Audus ( talk) 22:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For all the work you've done creating, expanding and improving important philosophy articles, and for putting up with recent discussions at WikiProject Philosophy here and at de.wiki. Alduin2000 ( talk) 18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC) |
(P.S. I also realised that per WP:NOATT you didn't need to add copied templates to deontology at all, so sorry for wasting some of your time by suggesting that!) Alduin2000 ( talk) 18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for making a suggestion at Ontology that could salvage at least some of my work there. I'm done editing that page, because the conversation became too toxic for me to enjoy it anymore. Maybe I'd revisit it later. I hope you will make the edit you suggested. Have a nice day. Larataguera ( talk) 15:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see what you would do to improve this article, if you're interested: Criteria of truth. Biogeographist ( talk) 14:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
criteri*
in The Oxford Handbook of Truth, which turned up some possible leads in multiple chapters, including the chapter on "Truth pluralism", which suggests right away a link to
Pluralist theories of truth, which I just added to the article's "See also" section.
Biogeographist (
talk) 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Phlsph7. Thank you for your work on Schramm's model of communication. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The Reviewers Award | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 22:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC) |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
What is "the GAN"? — Jacona ( talk) 18:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Phlsph7. You've added multiple short form reference ls to this article, without defining what those works are. For instance you've added "Håkansson & Westander 2013" but you need to add a full cite to explain what work that is referring to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 17:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, again, thank you for your original review of the GAN for Huntsville, Alabama. I've rewritten a lot of the article and changed the things you suggested, and have renominated in. Would you mind reviewing it again? Thank you! -- MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) 14:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Major stations include WHNT 19.1 CBS, WHIQ 25.1 PBS/Alabama Public Television, WAFF 48.1 NBC, and WZDX 54.1 FOX.
The airport is a general aviation airport and does not have any regularly-scheduled commercial services.
The former chief of police was appointed as its director.
These organizations are located in Huntsville but operate both in the city and outside with HCRU responding to many cave rescue calls coming from caves well outside the city limits.
{{
TOC limit|3}}
" to exclude the subsubsection from the overview.Nice work! Such vital-topic articles deserve it. After it passes the GA hurdle (shouldn't be too difficult) please consider nominating it for DYK for some Main Page exposure. BorgQueen ( talk) 09:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I thought this might be quicker for reviewers to read. If you don't like it, please feel free to revert. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
<ref name="Levi" group="Notes">Levi (2012), pp. 32–37.</ref>
<ref name="Levi" group="Notes">Numbers are given as thousands of pairs of Levi jeans sold worldwide in each year.</ref>
<ref>Short explanations</ref>
that aren't separated from the list of sources at all, so the problem will exist even if you fix this one.Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dunning–Kruger effect you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa ( talk) 02:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Today this concept [conscious] has become part of semantics, psychiatry and neurology [meaning, cognition, perception]. When talking in general conversation...try using awareness and natural. The lead paragraph for Experience is without category or content, "needs major work". Please review what you know about conscious, it has very much changed because of Process philosophy for philosophy...Thanks for kind tolerance of my attempts to edit. Arnbiology ( talk) 17:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The lead paragraph for Experience is without category or content. The very first sentence associated the term with various categories. And this is a form of content.
Hello, Phlsph7! I've considered your reversion of an edit done by myself, done in Logic, however, there really aren't much sources to this concept and the reason of such edit was for readers to start conceiving this idea. Greetings! Active2023 ( talk) 01:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
By the way, did you understand these logical sentences that were written? Active2023 ( talk) 14:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Knowledge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have been cleaning up Special:WantedTemplates and noticed that your javascript page is showing up in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:" + "subst:cn. This is because the backend software is parsing the curly braces as templates. An easy way to fix this is to put
// <nowiki>
at the top of your script, and
// </nowiki>
at the bottom of your script. This won't impact the functionality, since they are in javascript comments, but will remove the pages from Special:WantedTemplates. Thanks in advance for your help! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
On 20 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Knowledge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it is controversial whether knowledge is the same as justified true belief? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Knowledge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Knowledge), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I declined your CSD request at declarative knowledge. The current title descriptive knowledge has been stable for some time; and, out of a sense of caution, I think your request would be better listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This isn't a value judgment at all, just a procedural note. Hope you understand. Thanks. -- Hadal ( talk) 19:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
On 15 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Logic translation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that logic translations can be used to analyze whether arguments expressed in ordinary language are correct? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Logic translation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Logic translation), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh ( talk) 00:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Logical reasoning you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Non-pegasus -- Non-pegasus ( talk) 00:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Phylsph7. Thank you for your work on the Logical reasoning wiki. I have completed the initial review. I've put it on hold because of a copyright question-mark concerning the Versailles propaganda poster. More details in the comments on 6b. All else was a pass. Please correct or update the image. The caption was good and relevant and I would hate to see you not add any image to your "As a skill" section over a copyright concern especially when propaganda examples are easy to access. Case in point, the top item in the "Did you know..." section for 18 April 2023 is an example of propaganda you could use. That wiki in fact discusses the logical merits of that British recruitment poster and would be a good example to use in the stead of the Versailles poster. Let me know if you have any questions. I will likely update the review within 24 hours of your corrections. Non-pegasus ( talk) 00:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Scholarly Barnstar | ||
For your ongoing revamp of Logic which made me say "holy cow" when I looked at the article just now. Botterweg14 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Logic you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence ( talk) 04:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Experience is a natural state [1] not a conscious state, please look at "Experience lead paragraph again", and remove any reference to conscious states from the lead. Think about it, thanks Arnold Arnbiology ( talk) 22:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC
References
|loc=[https://www.python.org/ Python] § Lingzhi ( talk) 10:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
{{sfn|Smith|loc-url=http://example.com/|loc=chapter 1}}
does not work but can be replaced by {{sfn|Smith|loc=[http://example.com/ chapter 1]}}
to get the same effect. See
Template:Sfn#Adding_a_URL_for_the_page_or_location.
Phlsph7 (
talk) 13:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
( ←) Yes, I initially tried to adhere to your preferred style by using the {{ multiref2}} format. But when I placed {{ sfn}} templates inside {{ multiref2}}, the multi-line formatting of the latter displayed in body text. It was an ugly mess... BTW, what does "em1589" in this mean: "Pedemonte 2018, pp. em1589"? § Lingzhi ( talk) 20:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
( ←) I'm a little busy at the moment. I'm gonna do a source spot check later, maybe today, maybe tomorrow, sometime soon-ish. if you have any pdfs you wanna email me, now would be a good time. :-) § Lingzhi ( talk) 02:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Communication you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 125.27.3.235 -- 125.27.3.235 ( talk) 15:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
On 12 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Declarative knowledge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that declarative knowledge is an awareness of facts that differs from practical knowledge in the form of skills and knowledge by acquaintance based on experiential familiarity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Declarative knowledge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Declarative knowledge), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I have seen that your article Logic has passed GA. If this article is supposed to be listed as Philosophy and Religion, then it might be listed on Philosophy, but I couldn't find any sections that include this article. Should I put it in the "Philosophies and philosophical movements" section? I am not actually an expert in philosophy, but as a mathematics part relatedly, I would gladly want to see if this can be promoted to FAC. Regards, Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 06:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey. I was by coincidence looking at the Reward Board and saw your two articles, including Logic. Then I talked to the wub about Education (I am an English teacher). He said you are working on it, which I did not know... Are you gonna go for that reward? I could find another article... I call dibs one... I call dibs on History of science. :-) § Lingzhi ( talk) 11:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The article Dunning–Kruger effect you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa ( talk) 22:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
On 21 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Logic, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aristotle's system of logic formed the foundation of logical thought for more than 2,000 years until the advent of modern symbolic logic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Logic. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Logic), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Your work on Logic and Knowledge is simply impressive! Makes one proud of Wikipedia!
WatkynBassett (
talk) 09:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Would this Guardian source be useful for intrapersonal communication? — VORTEX 3427 ( Talk!) 09:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The article Knowledge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Knowledge for comments about the article, and Talk:Knowledge/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Vital Barnstar | ||
Long overdue. You did some insane work to improve articles in the Vital list. Your contributions will not go unnoticed by the readers. |
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your readability script which I have just installed after learning of it here.
Might you have time to add SMOG to it in future? Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Why don't you want to add "In common usage, philosophy and cognitive science," to articles about concepts used in philosophy, cognitive science and outside any academic field (common usage)? 79.131.29.193 ( talk) 03:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Schramm's model of communication you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 21:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your work on Logic, Knowledge, and other articles of huge importance but (until you!) dubious quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
On 6 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Schramm's model of communication, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Schramm's model of communication introduced the idea of feedback loops to understand communication? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Schramm's model of communication. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Schramm's model of communication), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I spent a tedious 30+ minutes manually alphabetizing the bibliography on the philosophy page at some point prior to your appending further sources yesterday. I'll integrate those ones, but would you mind observing the alphabetical organization moving forward? Besides just looking cleaner, it makes it easier for other odd folks like me, who typically skim the bibliography to decide if an entry/article/book is even serious enough to be worth reading.
(I did not convert any <ref> citations because I'm really hoping that they mostly drop out over the course of other content-based edits. Also: even more tedious. If we get the article to a place we're happy with, we can deal with those then.)
Thanks! Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 18:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Intrapersonal communication you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 00:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
On 14 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article History of philosophy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the history of philosophy in India is characterized by its combined interest in the nature of reality, the ways of arriving at knowledge, and the spiritual question of how to reach enlightenment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of philosophy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, History of philosophy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh ( talk) 00:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey @ Phlsph7:, I'm a fan of some of your AI work and it looks like we have some overlapping interests. These include AI (I'm pretty interested in exploiting AI for reading / note taking + reading, and do bits and pieces in my real life). If you fancied comparing notes / paper reading history sometime I'd be interested. Talpedia 13:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Logical reasoning you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Logical reasoning for comments about the article, and Talk:Logical reasoning/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Non-pegasus -- Non-pegasus ( talk) 11:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The article Logic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Logic for comments about the article, and Talk:Logic/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence ( talk) 12:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Declarative knowledge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion ( talk) 16:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Irredentism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Augustios Paleo -- Augustios Paleo ( talk) 18:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Misanthropy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 22:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Communication you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bart Terpstra -- Bart Terpstra ( talk) 15:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
On 15 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Source–Message–Channel–Receiver model of communication, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the Source–Message–Channel–Receiver model, all forms of communication are attempts to influence the behavior of the audience? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Source–Message–Channel–Receiver model of communication), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dunning–Kruger effect you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 00:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey Phlsph7, I was reading Declarative knowledge and I had a suggestion for citing multiple sources in one reference. You may find the Template:sfnm easier to use and much more aesthetically pleasing. Keep up the great work! Cheers. — Golden talk 16:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Logic translation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dylnuge -- Dylnuge ( talk) 20:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philosophy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Models of communication you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Argenti Aertheri -- Argenti Aertheri ( talk) 09:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Philosophy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Philosophy and Talk:Philosophy/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
On 20 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Intrapersonal communication, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some theorists claim that intrapersonal communication is the basis of all communication? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Intrapersonal communication. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Intrapersonal communication), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
On 23 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Misanthropy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some misanthropes reject humanity because of how humans treat other animals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Misanthropy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Misanthropy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 7,422 views (618.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2023 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thank you for improving the article Philosphy! Your work is appreciated. The person who loves reading ( talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
The Good Article Barnstar | ||
Thanks for improving a level-1 vital article, Philosphy, to good article status! The person who loves reading ( talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Education you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion ( talk) 20:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey @ Phlsph7, I have no experience working with Wikipedia scripts (although I probably ought to educate myself), but I'm wondering if you have any documentation on the script that, if I understand correctly, you used to at least partially convert ref tags to sfn, or to generate a proper list of works cited?
I've been cleaning up the Martin Heidegger page, and this could save me a lot of tedious labor. Ref tags work fine on short articles, but on larger articles with long histories they make everything very cluttered. It is more difficult to assess sourcing issues for the article as a whole, and it is also more difficult to edit around all the extra text.
Let me know —
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 17:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
affected references
|
---|
|
Notes
The Featured Article Medal | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC) |
On 4 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dunning–Kruger effect, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "the first rule of the Dunning–Kruger club is you don't know you're a member of the Dunning–Kruger club"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dunning–Kruger effect. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Dunning–Kruger effect), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Z1720 ( talk) 00:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 20,700 views (862.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2023 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
On 10 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Models of communication, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of the earliest models of communication was developed by Aristotle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Models of communication. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Models of communication), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 00:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Phlsph7, I am looking at running Logic as the TFA on 5 November. Given that it is a bit on the technical sode, I wondered if you fancied having first stab at a draft blurb? Cheers. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
On 11 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Education, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it is controversial whether indoctrination is a form of education? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Education. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Education), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 00:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi I saw you want to improve the Motivation article. A while ago I followed a sports psychology class who also extensively discussed the topic of motivation. Things that might be interesting to write about are: Nature vs nurture (Scientists still discuss what is the bigger factor that leads to motivation or a combination of both), examples per type of motivation: for example extrinsic motivation is caused by: money, rewards, fear of punishment, while intrinsic is caused by autonomy, belonging, curiosity etc. Maybe write something about the flow channel by csikszentmihalyi. Can't find the model itself on Wikipedia but it is being taught at schools and important to understand what causes someone to be motivated (Self-efficacy, Autonomy, Level of challenge, Level of skill) if these are just right you get into that "flow channel". Interesting topic! Coldbolt ( talk) 14:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
On 12 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Irredentism, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 is an example of irredentism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Irredentism. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Irredentism), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The article Schramm's model of communication you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Schramm's model of communication for comments about the article, and Talk:Schramm's model of communication/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 09:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your comments when reviewing the article about Shrewsbury. One comment I didn't quite follow was: "avoid American English (travellers)", what word would you suggest in preference? Regards Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 15:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
My apologies, but I am certain that at least 90% of what you thought was not sourced was. I added yet more references, and I am now confident that 95-99% is sourced. (Like all good scientists I will never claim 100%.) I admit that the article is quite technical, but that's the nature of the beast. (It is very mild compared to the literature.) Ldm1954 ( talk) 03:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The article Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication for comments about the article, and Talk:Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 10:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 5 November 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 5, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The article Intrapersonal communication you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Intrapersonal communication for comments about the article, and Talk:Intrapersonal communication/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 23:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For being bold enough to FAC Communication, itself only the latest in a series of very high-level editing. There is a reason few tackle these. CMD ( talk) 13:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC) |
Can you please explain why you reverted my edit? The referenced article does support the thesis that this is a theoretical physically consistent possibility? Strecosaurus ( talk) 22:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The article Irredentism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Irredentism for comments about the article, and Talk:Irredentism/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Augustios Paleo -- Augustios Paleo ( talk) 19:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Declarative knowledge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Declarative knowledge for comments about the article, and Talk:Declarative knowledge/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion ( talk) 15:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Misanthropy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Misanthropy for comments about the article, and Talk:Misanthropy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Communication you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Communication and Talk:Communication/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bart Terpstra -- Bart Terpstra ( talk) 11:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The article Communication you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Communication for comments about the article, and Talk:Communication/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bart Terpstra -- Bart Terpstra ( talk) 17:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
On 7 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Philosophy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that physics, chemistry, and biology were all part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Philosophy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Philosophy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
logic and philosophy
Thank you for quality articles around thinking, such as Logic, Philosophy, Education and Models of communication, for collaboration and quality reviewing, for a model of a modest user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2884 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
my story today |
---|
Huntsville, Alabama has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 14:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Many congrats on the TFA today. It's so great to see these general-topic FAs. FrB.TG ( talk) 10:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Thebiguglyalien submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Logic |
Phlsph7 |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning November 12, 2023 |
A major contributor to some of Wikipedia's most important and vital articles that were in sub-standard condition. Phlsph7 brought them all to good article status in a matter of months with forbearance and top-tier contributions. This user makes knowledge more accessible to all. |
Recognized for |
Increasing Available Knowledge |
Notable work(s) |
Philosophy, Logic, Communication, Education, and Knowledge |
Submit a nomination |
Thanks again for your efforts! ― Buster7 ☎ 11:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Phlsph7. Your additions to Arithmetic caused a lot of no target errors. If you haven't already you should turn on the error messages for this type of reference, you can find the details of how to do so here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. I've fixed most of the errors using the URLs used in the page numbers of the references, but a few are still missing. Could you add the required cites for "Nagel 2002", "EoC staff 2016", and "Hosch 2023" to the Sources section or let me know what works these refer to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 13:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The article Logic translation you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Logic translation and Talk:Logic translation/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dylnuge -- Dylnuge ( talk) 05:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Dunning–Kruger effect you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect for comments about the article, and Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 14:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Logic translation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Logic translation for comments about the article, and Talk:Logic translation/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dylnuge -- Dylnuge ( talk) 15:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Philosophy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Philosophy for comments about the article, and Talk:Philosophy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Models of communication you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Models of communication for comments about the article, and Talk:Models of communication/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Argenti Aertheri -- Argenti Aertheri ( talk) 22:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The Content Creativity Barnstar | ||
For your decisions to rescue articles such as Logic and Philosophy with a speed and skill few have managed before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
The article Education you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Education for comments about the article, and Talk:Education/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion ( talk) 23:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arithmetic you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ThatChemist25 -- ThatChemist25 ( talk) 22:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
You had made Wikipedia a much better place. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 12:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The Star of Sophia | ||
The Star of Sophia is awarded by acclamation of the larger
WikiProject Philosophy community to editors who have made an outstanding contribution to the coverage of
philosophy on Wikipedia.
This award has been bestowed upon Phlsph7 for their outstanding work in bringing Philosophy and Logic up to FA status, as well as for almost single-handedly creating History of philosophy – among many other contributions to this WikiProject. In the words of warshy, "His contributions are just amazing." Many thanks for all of your excellent work! Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 21:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
While I have got nothing against you as a person, I am somewhat annoyed by your comments at the RfC. I don't think it is fair to say I'm trying to "put stones in people's way"; I'm trying to establish the minimal possible framework of policy for breathing room to explore the potential of a new technology. You may have noticed that, every time there's one of those big project-wide discussions about LLMs, there's a sizeable contingent of people who simply say that they're garbage and we need to ban them entirely -- I will also note that this contingent grows larger in direct proportion to the amount of slop that is poured into the new pages feed. If we refuse to do anything at all about this issue, even the smallest token gesture, it is not going to result in a bright new sunny day for LLM enjoyers. jp× g 🗯️ 09:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
"the policy in its current formulation". I appreciate all the effort you have poured into the project of addressing inappropriate LLM uses. The change I proposed to the current formulation was meant as a contribution to this project. My impression is that the two of us agree that LLMs are both useful and dangerous and that a middle way is required to harness their potential while minimizing their downsides. Phlsph7 ( talk) 09:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Congrats Phlsph7! Thanks for everything you do here. Aza24 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
story · music |
---|
Thank you for a splendid general article! I'm sorry that I missed the FAC, - I had planned to come, but travelled too much, late even for congratulations ;) - Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary, and Aaron Copland died OTD. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Power: A New Social Analysis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Existence you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Of the universe -- Of the universe ( talk) 01:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 February 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 1, 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The Communication Barn-Statue? | |
Yeah, I had a lot of confusion when doing this. But seriously, thank you for everything communication. One more question, when is this turning blue? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 (The Garage) 01:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For continuously improving important and highly viewed articles to GA and FA status. Shapeyness ( talk) 17:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hi Phlsph7! Thank you for your valuable comments and appreciating my efforts. Do you think that a concise explanation of the topic (the beginning of communication) might be available in another already existing section as a short part of it (e.g., in “Communication Studies”)? Best regards, Ana Padovana ( talk) 13:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
References
On 8 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Existence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it is controversial whether there are things that do not exist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Existence. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Existence), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Waggers TALK 00:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 18,310 views (762.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2024 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, first of all I would like to record my appreciation of the work you have done on the various pages around Communication.
I would normally have just made an edit rather than talk but given the featured article status and your work etc thought I would talk first.
I suggest that the first line read:
"Communication is usually understood to be the transmission and reception of information."
(Italics just to show my addition).
In my work simply transmitting data has often not resulted in comprehension by the listener/reader. I would support my suggested change by using the Oxford Dictionary of Media and Communication (amongst other texts) which emphasises interaction rather than transmission. (see https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/acref/9780198841838.001.0001/acref-9780198841838-e-413?rskey=h9ldXT&result=1)
Would you support this addition as I think it would help set the scene for the rest of the article especially for those new to the subject ??
Happy to hear your views. johnmark†: Talk(talk to me) 11:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
So impressed by your writing ability. Communication is just one such example. It is a wonderful world ( talk) 06:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you constructively edit again, you may be given a barnstar without further warning. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Tom B ( talk) 16:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello there. I have no particular justification for assuming you either have the time or the inclination for this particular article—I suspect it's not squarely in your wheelhouse—but I've been working on
Zhuangzi (book), and my goal is to get it to FA status. I would like to actively emulate your work in its usefulness, elegance, and concision—I've just acquired your Flesch scoring script, as like many others I struggle to tune sentences for maximum ease and clarity, so I really should've found this before. It will be a godsend.
I would like to keep the article under 5000 words, for no other reason than simply bluntly preventing the worst excesses. The largest omission to my eyes is a proper discussion of historical commentaries—which I don't expect any particular expertise in from most anyone on English Wikipedia, of course—but lacking further expertise it is a bit overwhelming looking down the barrel of such an important work in the history of philosophy, and trying to weigh all its different themes as have been analyzed throughout history.
In any case, thank you in advance for any input you may or may not have, and thank you for the excellent work and the inspiration. Cheers!
Remsense
留 10:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The Zhuangzi (Chinese: 莊子, historically romanized Chuang Tzŭ) is a work of Chinese literature written during the late Warring States period (476–221 BC), named for its traditional author "Master Zhuang".You could consider turning the first into the second sentence since the more import fact seems to be that it is a foundational texts of Taoism. Something along the lines "The Zhuangzi is one of the foundational texts of Taoism. It was written during...". Another thought would be to be to move the expression in the parenthesis to the body of the article (see MOS:LEADCLUTTER).
Stein and Pelliot ultimately took most of manuscripts back to Europeadd "the" before "manuscripts"
The Zhuangzi is most influential work of pure literature writtenadd "the" before "most"
Zhuangzi did not entirely abandon language and reason, but "only wished to point out that over-dependence on them could limit the flexibility of thought"This formulation be read as implying that the quote is from Zhuangzi.
Thank you today for Communication, introduced: "Communication is a wide topic and includes diverse phenomena pertaining not only to humans but also to animals, plants, and computers. The article may interest you if you have ever wondered about some of the following questions: "Is communication more than the transmission of information?", "How can intrapersonal communication be external?", "Are there important differences between human and animal communication?", "How do plants communicate despite their limited bodily movement?", "Why is communication between members of the same species more common than between members of different species?", and "Why did the invention of the printing press matter in the history of communication?"."!
The image of my story yesterday would make a good illustration for communication, while today's story is a nod to my mother on her birthday ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to see the archiving! If you open a PR or new FAC in the future, feel free to ping me and I'd like to review it further if I have the time. Best, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Your GA review of the article 75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event failed: Can I renominate the article after I work on the suggested changes? Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm curious right now. Are you planning for nominating both Arithmetic and Algebra to FA after they passed GA? It's interesting that there are more users who nominate mathematics articles. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 08:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Phlsph7. Enjoyed working with you at Communication. Just wondering what you are up to, these days? Any interest in philosophy of law? Have been getting into philosophy of law, especially legal positivism, and one of its proponents Hans Kelsen, but to some extent precursors like John Austin, and successors like H.L.A. Hart. I don't have a legal background at all, but the philosophy of what is law and where does it come from and what is it based on is fascinating. If you know zip about this, I could recommend some intro videos by Jeffrey Kaplan, asst. prof. of philo at UNC Greensboro; a good starting point is Legal Positivism - the dominant theory in jurisprudence but all his videos are packed with information and a great intro. One tip before you even get into it: that's positivism as in, "that which is posited", not about something "positive" (as opposed to negative). Maybe calling it, "Legal positism" would've avoided a lot of the initial confusion about the term. Anyway, lmk what you are up to, would be fun to collaborate on something else. Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 10:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Arithmetic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arithmetic for comments about the article, and Talk:Arithmetic/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ThatChemist25 -- ThatChemist25 ( talk) 12:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The article Arithmetic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arithmetic for comments about the article, and Talk:Arithmetic/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of History6042 -- History6042 ( talk) 15:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arithmetic you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 08:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello again—I'm curious if you have any further thoughts on the linguistic structure diagram you took removed from Semantics! Coincidentally, I've been getting my hands dirty pondering how to rewrite Morphology a few rungs inward. While I am generally much more "familiar" with the inner rings, I have definitely appreciated how none of them perfectly contain the others at any level. However, in the broadest strokes, the diagram seemed fairly representative and helpful at the very introduction of an encyclopedia article, from what I've understood: phone → phoneme → morpheme, word → phrase, sentence at the very least is "true enough" for a visual aid while obscuring considerable complexity and dimension (for example, like that of written language as not wholly phonocentrically sourced), but it certainly seems that phrase → semantics gives me pause. Do you think some form of this diagram is viable? I would be interested in perhaps redesigning it, if so. Remsense 诉 13:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
One traditional distinction in language analysis contrasts pragmatics with syntax and semantics.The danger with the diagram is that readers might jump to the conclusion that semantics is a subfield of pragmatics and syntax is a subfield of semantics, which is not how the reliable sources usually treat their relations. If the diagram is taken from an author that makes these claims then one solution could be to attribute this view to them, maybe with an added footnote that others see it differently. Another approach might be to remove, add, rearrange, or relabel the levels in the diagram but I'm not sure how to solve the problem this way. The diagram is used in various articles so finding some kind of solution would be important. Phlsph7 ( talk) 14:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Semantics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Remsense 诉 17:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Semantics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Remsense -- Remsense ( talk) 17:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)