User talk:Gregbard/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Speedy deletion of Template:Aesthetics

A tag has been placed on Template:Aesthetics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go!

	The Hidden Barnstar
	This user has found Basketball110's secret hidden sub page! Can you find it?

Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The footballing philosopher

Hi Greg,

I couldn't see any particular reason why you you had added the {{philosophy}} banner to Talk:Paul Ramsey (in this edit), so I have removed it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I was looking for the explanation but could not find it. At some point it must have been in a philosopher category. I did see that someone had blanked this person's article in favor of some text about brie cheese. Not sure if theres a connection. Good eye! Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to {{philosophy}}

Yo Greg, could you have a look at my comments at Template_talk:Philosophy? I am intending on introducing a new version of the template, but I don't want to break Wikipedia with my horrible coding. Thanks, Skomorokh 09:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive box

Hi, I happen to see that you have the same problem here with the text on your automated archive box as in the WikiProject Logic talkpage. I think I fix it over there. -- Mdd (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy task force participant lists

Someone asked at WT:PHILO so I looked up the lists of participants in some task forces. Some aren't working properly, and it doesn't look like people are adding their names anyway. However, it can be made so that whoever adds a task force userbox will get their name automatically added to the task force list. I've made it work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Social and political#Participants as an example. –Pomte 06:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Theory (disambiguation)

You should capitalize the first letters. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Consistent

Not every occurrence of the word "consistent" on Wikipedia should be linked to the article consistent. This should be done only when the term is being used in its technical sense, not when it is being used in its common English sense. I am reverting those of your recent edits where you incorrectly linked this term. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). silly rabbit (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true. I am working through a rather large list at a steady clip. I am not wiki-linking every one. There are some that refer to consistency as texture, consistency in databases, consistent performance at a task, etc. I am avoiding those. Feel free to revert any you think are gratuitous --HOWEVER... I do not agree with a very strict interpretation that only the technical sense is worthy. I would like for people who use logical terminology in common discourse to become more aware of it, and use it correctly. Wiki-linking these common English usages will help bring logical concepts closer to the average person's understanding. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents here. Its great to see someone dedicated enough to increase the cross-linking in wikipedia. But the link to consistent seemed inappropriate in the Hammerhead ribozyme article. I feel pretty certain that noone interested in that article would be following that link. Alexbateman (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh you feel pretty certain do you? That's a pretty big presumption on your part. No, you don't really know what people are searching for, nor how people use the WP. By and large philosophical terminology is seen by many as completely valueless. Nothing is farther than the truth. It isn't valueless at all. These kind of terms mean something very specific, and people study them in depth. We really can't have people who are unreflective determining how important these things are. Please reconsider the value of providing a link to a term with a lot more going on behind it than is commonly considered. My goal here really is to bring people around to logic. This includes the broader audience. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia, and links in particular, is not to bring people around to logic. I agree with User:Silly rabbit and User:Alexbateman that the word consistent should only be linked if it's used in the logical meaning of "not producing any contradictions", and I've also delinked a couple of instances. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. It should only be linked from places where experts on the subject discussed would agree that the link is relevant, and perhaps in a few exceptional situations where that is not hte case. But never to promote logic. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree in the least guys. It's like saying Wikipedia isn't here to promote knowledge. I'd say you've both missed the point entirely. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

T'ai chi philosophy

Greetings. I've been able to do some cleanup work on T'ai chi philosophy, thanks for bringing it to the tai chi talk page. It was too "how-to" before, IMO, now perhaps it is a bit better referenced. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex

You posted on Wikipedia talk:Special:PrefixIndex a while ago asking about a suffixindex searcher. My post PrefixIndex, middleindex, suffixindex, etc. addresses this. Best! GregManninLB (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Benevolence

The page was little more than a dictionary definition with an existing entry at Wiktionary, so I deleted it under the fifth criterion for speedy deletion. Deltabeignet (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, no, no. Let me make this clear. Our policy is and has always been quite clear that Wikipedia is not a dictionary—I would have been neglecting my responsibilities if I had not deleted the article. "Benevolence" is not a concept that can be fleshed out in encyclopedic detail—it is best defined succinctly in a dictionary like our sister project, Wiktionary. Deltabeignet (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem. I have been working on articles that are in the area of philosophy. As you may understand, many people think that philosophy is useless altogether. Very often we have issues concerning how important a wikilink is (for example). So if you think that benevolence just doesn't qualify for an article, that would be grossly inconsistent with, for instance, all of the other ethical principles for which there are wonderful articles. So people think that philosophical terms are pretty useless. This is largely because everybody thinks they already know everything about these things! Nothing is further from the truth. Furthermore, we really can't have the unreflective making the final decisions about what is and is not valuable in the philosophy department. Please post a notice at WT:PHILO, or go through a formal deletion proposal process (did you?) for anything like this. No WP is not a dictionary, so please help us develop it, not delete these type of entries. You very often destroy good content forever when you take the deletionist view. There really is NO need for that. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to know philosophy and logic pretty well, so I'll assume you know what a straw man is. For the last time, I did not delete the article because it dealt with philosophy or because I am a deletionist. I deleted the article because it was no more than a definition of a word. There was no question of this being out of line. Any other administrator would have done the same. If you believe that there is a good deal more to benevolence than a dictionary can explain, please feel free to recreate it, citing reliable sources. (By the way, no content is destroyed forever—administrators can access archived versions. If you want the deleted article's text, I'd be happy to provide it.) Deltabeignet (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD for the Heisenberg business

Did you know your comments on the talk page for that article are being misinterpreted and misattributed in the deletion debate? Just figured I should give you a heads up so you can clear the air over there. Protonk (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Category assessment

You just used AWB to give an importance rating to a category. As non-articles, categories don't require importance flags, but rather category tags, depending on what style your project uses. Importance/priority tags are used to sort the workload of articles in the project queue. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that. It seems to me a waste of opportunity. Those category pages have lead paragraphs in many cases, so I don't know that we shouldn't try evaluation. I suppose if it screws up the whole 1.0 assessment or something I'll go back at tag them all NA if necessary. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Intellect

Regarding, "If you don't understand something intellectually, you don't understand it at all"... My dog found a rattlesnake on a hike recently. He wouldn't get near it, and was barking at me like crazy, as if to warn me. Would you say that 1) he understood the danger intellectually, or 2) that he didn't understand it at all? If you don't like this analogy, insert his understanding that bacon tastes good. ;] Tparameter (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dogs use instinct in such a case. It would be ridiculous to say that a dog understands the evolution, origin, and meaning of a snake's existence. Suppose for instance the dog's master was the president, and the snake was poisonous. A dog understanding things intellectually would be agonizing about whether the world would be better off without his master. I'm sure many Americans would hear such a story and think. Too bad that dog didn't understand things intellectually AT ALL.

Bacon is bad for you. Certainly the dog doesn't understand this at all either. Would you like to live with the mind of a dog? If I could magically turn you into a dog, that would be a morally sick thing to do to a human because of the meaning of a human's rational capacity. You would happily scarf down bacon not caring about the fat, the slaughtered pig, etc. It would be perfectly apt to say that you don't understand bacon at all, nor the hunt in the case of a hound, nor playing ball in the case of a retriever.

You may be content in this role, but to say that consists in understanding what needs to be understood would be to really miss the point of understanding. Perhaps a plant understands what it needs to understand too?

My point is about topics in logic. Mathematicians really should humble themselves at least a little bit to ask a specialist about that aspect of the topic because as we can see, its not something many care about.

There is great wisdom in that phrase. It is also the foundation of appearing arrogant as many philosophers (especially ethicists) often do when talking about what is really important. However, people of all various disciplines really should be listening to the philosophers: political scientists, geographers, and jeez I wish the clergy would too. My goodness. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My point was that the dog understands the essence of the snake, which is that it is dangerous. His understanding is absent any intellectual considerations, yet he understands its essence, which is life-and-death valuable. So, I'm suggesting that your quote is not accurate. You're right about one thing, however - mathematicians could use more humility. All the best. Tparameter (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No T, if anything the one thing the dog does not understand it the snake's essence. It is to say that the dog understands enough, or understands what is important in a particular situation. That's not essence. Intellectual understanding is understanding the principles behind things. Principles are understood as that which is supposed to be true forever, in all applicable circumstances. All you can say about the dog is that he understands the consequences of this particular situation. That's not true understanding.

Interestingly, many movies are based on this principle. The last moment of the film the surprise ending is revealed and it turns out that we didn't really understand the meaning of the movie at all up to that point. One would be perfectly justified in saying that a person did not understand the movie AT ALL, unless he saw the ending. This is analogous to "the final analysis." That is what the philosopher is concerned with, not the rest of the twists in the plot. Also interestingly, I remember seeing a userpage on the wp of a physicist who says he does not talk physics with anyone other than physicists. Philosophers don't have that luxury.

I am a cab driver, and everybody out there knows how to drive. So all the time I have people telling me how to do my job to one degree or another. I pretty much take it in stride, and try to tactfully communicate that "I've got it covered" or whatever. Well guess what? Everyone knows how to reason too don't they? Well there sure is a whole academic department devoted to it, so there must be something that the hoi polloi don't know. Such is the life of a philosopher ( and a cab driver). Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear - I don't claim the dog understands the snake intellectually. I'm simply giving a counter-example to your claim that since he does not understand intellectually, then he does not understand "at all". I argue that his primitive understanding is enough to survive, and is therefore essential understanding. Tparameter (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then the question becomes one of degree, and whether or not the dog level of understanding is sufficient to say one really understands something. Philosophers aren't concerned with the pragmatic reality that tells us "Its very important to survive" "The dog's understanding is sufficient for that purpose." Therefore we can't say that the dog doesn't understand the situation at all. Maybe the snake is a harmless, endangered species. The dog isn't prepared for that. It would be relevant if true. So the dog doesn't really understand the situation AT ALL, and perhaps the human doesn't either. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your statement, "Philosophers aren't concerned with the pragmatic reality..."... Ever heard of Pragmatism? Tparameter (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, which species of rattler is harmless - and, speaking of logic, what in the name of God would the fact that it may be endangered have to do with anything? Tparameter (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If the rattlesnake bites you, you will die. You will be missed by family, friends, your job, the wikipedia. All that wp content will never be. The dog doesn't understand the situation at all.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you dropped the aforementioned pragmatic point, and the endangered species point for that matter. We are still left with a dog that has never seen a rattlesnake and understood there was danger. Your saying there was no understanding "at all" doesn't make it so. But, feel free to say it again... ;) Instead, we can go back three layers in this thread, and let's just accept your words, "... whether or not the dog level of understanding is sufficient..." I take it to mean that you've accepted that there is a "dog level of understanding", which is some understanding, which is not zero understanding, which is why I used that analogy as a counter-example to your original statement. {sigh}. All the best. Tparameter (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

First-order logic

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I am going to do some work on First-order logic; probably quite slowly and gradually, because I don't want to invest too much time into this. The article currently covers only syntax and proof theory, and then in the end some fairly advanced stuff that can't be understood without the semantics – which are not discussed at all. Also the connection to computer science, while mentioned in the first sentence, is almost completely absent elsewhere. Then there are many variants of first-order logic such as many-sorted logic, infinitary logic, logic with/without equality, propositional constants, which are not discussed. So there is a lot of little things to do. What I don't want to do, and I trust that you will tell me whenever I get near that point, is remove or downplay the philosophical side. But please be constructive. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hans, we are all on the same team here, we just play different positions. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Logic Templates

What's with all of the logic templates? Platonism? Logical Positivism? These are much more broad than logic, and in fact, logical positivism merely purports to use logic in science, not define logic. It is also mostly discredited, or well, whatever the article says about Popper's objections to it. So if it's not true, why would it appear in a category of logic? It is just a form of reasoning that doesn't always work [or so the article says]. Jok2000 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just read your web site. It says you taught students on valid reasoning patterns and that you're a humanist. I should point out that humanism has a logical positive bent to it in as much as one of its tenets is that all things are explainable by natural processes. You also express a belief that evolution applies to physics. This is not explainable by natural process, nor logic (from peer reviewed, published sources). You arrived at it with some reasoning pattern, not logic; logical positivism is a reasoning pattern, not logic. It should not be in the logic category, it is a misrepresentation of the word "logic". Jok2000 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted just those logic-template additions that do not pertain to logic. Jok2000 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You also added a {{weiner}} template to one of them. That's enough to negate any assumption of good faith on your part. Philip Trueman (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you look more carefully, you will discover that I removed weiner from one of those pages. I would appreciate a retraction. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They're only there because you added them. I want to take this to WP:rfc Jok2000 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the relevant, legitimate, justified and appropriate logic templates on empiricism, platonism, etc, then yes, they are there because I put them back. Please read Philosophy of logic, Philosophical logic, and some history of Analytic philosophy before you remove them. I would certainly welcome more discussion of what to include in the Philosophy of logic section of the template.

If you mean the weiner template, that was added by some vandal before I added the template. I took the opportunity to remove weiner as I added logic as you can see in this edit.

I certainly hope this puts the ridiculous "wiener" issue to rest. Although I would welcome a complete investigation (you know click on that link to the edit, and then check the history). I have asked Truman to retract his accusation. I don't see why he wouldn't at this point.

Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Weiners? That was the other guy complaining about that, I was referring to the logic template where we are now discussing the list of illogic now present in it. Jok2000 (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Gregbard, please read what I wrote more carefully, and in context. The indent is crucial. I was commenting on Jok2000's post immediately above, and addressing him, not you. He added the weiner template back, in this edit [1], and I removed it, in this edit [2]. That's the addition I was referring to, not the earlier one (which you removed). I would be most grateful if you would retract your request for a retraction of something that was never directed at you in first place - both here, and on my talk page. If you don't, I'll delete that section from my talk page anyway, but I'd rather give you the opportunity to admit that you made an honest mistake here. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! I presumed that it was addressed at me because it was on my talk page. That was my mistake. My apologies. Thanks for your work battling vandalism. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Peace. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Comments such as this [3] (line 598) are, in my opinion, a violation of Wikipedia conduct guidelines regarding civility, or are at best unnecessarily combatitive and non-constructive (and I don't mean the mathematical meaning of 'non-constructive' just to be really, really clear). Please refrain from such in the future. Thank you Zero sharp (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I too mean a strict definition of "reasonable" as well. You shouldn't take it so hard. Math is not intended to be "The Truth", it is a language that is convenient for understanding the truth. Perhaps I should have used the term "reasoner" in the spirit of the doxastic logic article. In that regard, there actually is a difference between an interpretation for the purpose of reasoning, and for mathematical purposes (in which, for instance you assign two names to the same object). Don't get me wrong, I think it is just fine that mathematicians use these techniques. However I would really like to put them in their context. In much the same way mathematicians demand a rigorous definition, and are very narrow at times (also fine btw), philosophers have standards as well as far as what we call "reasonable." Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make the mistake of thinking my comments have anything to do with 'taking it hard' re: your characterization of mathematics and mathematicians; they don't. I just ask that you conduct yourself a little more civilly in these discussions. Zero sharp (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The relationship to truth or reality of mathematics is an open topic in the philosophy of mathematics e.g. Philosophy_of_mathematics#Mathematical_realism, which, by the way also demonstrates the fallacy of believing Platonism is related to logic, as you will note, the word logic does not appear in that section. I don't mean to be rude, but you have not yet isolated the error in your philosophy of reasoning that drives you to seem to be arrogant about it. It is unfortunate to spend years studying a topic (reasoning) and then find out all that time, you thought you were discussing logic. Truly unfortunate, and I am sympathetic to anyone, who would not be you, and may in fact be me, that may find themselves in this situation. Jok2000 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure that Platonism was at one time THE ONLY philosophy of logic. So you really need to look into that. Also, the point is not including -isms we think work. It is to include the historical development of the thought on logic. In that light Platonism obviously belongs, and someone should write a section in the Platonism article dealing with Platonism as it applies to logic. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're excused. Simply cite the relevant definition of "logic". You will find your definition of it in the dictionary, under 'r', just after "reasonable" (i.e. the wrong one). The platonism page specifically states it is about "reasoning". Jok2000 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to wait for one other person to weigh in before I have to do research for you. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, motion for recess accepted. Jok2000 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving interpretation (logic) to logical interpretation

I find this move completely unacceptable. It will only make things even more complicated and seems to be calculated by you to get an advantage in the discussion. Similarly unacceptable is the absurd merger proposal between interpretation (logic) and mathematical model (a topic in applied mathematics). I already suggested on the talk page that you take it back, Philogo agreed, but you ignored this entirely. (Possibly because you haven't seen it.) Your behaviour looks more and more disruptive to me, and I am beginning to think about the option of a user conduct RFC. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded! Zero sharp (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hans, there really is no ulterior motive here. The terms are consistent with the Carnap language that I already explained on the talk page. Please take a look at formal interpretation, and descriptive interpretation. I am certainly open to moving content around. The concepts are matched to the namespace, consistent with what is being linked into it. Next we can move a lot of that socrates stuff out of interpretation (logic) and move it to description. I think that will help some of our issues. I'm sorry if you are mad, but take a look at what it says. This seems to me to be the appropriate organization. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on with the move, and apparently neither does anyone else. I'm glad you found one source in Carnap, but did you run the idea to use that source to reorganize everything by anyone else?

You created the interpretation (logic) article - what exactly did you plan to put in it? What part does it play in your overall plan now? What is your overall plan here? Please explain what's going on at the article talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Hans: merging with mathematical model is a very strange proposal (did Gregbard mean model (model theory)?). Should be removed. --Cokaban (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very strange indeed. Tparameter (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange, yet Arthur Rubin, who has disagreed with me in the past, also thought it should be merged with mathematical model. I'm pretty sure he knows what he's doing. The truth is that we should merge all of them together, and then take the large article that is the result, and shorten it by summarizing the sections, putting a {{main| link at the top of each, and moving content to those supporting articles. This is the strategy that I would use to try to get the story straight between all these models and interpretations.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. And then we merge all articles about Chinese politicians into Chinese politicians, and then take the large article that is the result, and shorten it by summarizing the sections etc. If you know next to nothing about Chinese politicians and think that there cannot be more than half a dozen of them it sounds almost sensible, right? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg, the model you're thinking of is not what is discussed in the article mathematical model. In that article, we're discussing "model" as in we need to model a mechanical system, for instance. So, in order for engineers to make decisions and implement design and construction of some system, it is sometimes helpful to create a mathematical model (imitation or duplication in some way) of that system. On the other hand, I think you may be thinking of possibly model theory. Either way, the models and interpretations that I studied in the Philosophy department when I studied mathematical logic are what you're talking about, and mathematical model is the same models that you and Arthur apparently are trying to connect to interpretation (logic). Tparameter (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What I have described is a recommended way to approach the development of large articles. Organizing it this way makes it possible to transfer content to and from supporting articles. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What I said was that a merge of model (abstract) to mathematical model mode more sense than Greg's move of that article to formal interpretation. Would you (Greg) please retract your statement above? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood your use of pronouns. So what you meant to say is that model (abstract) should have been merged with mathematical model, not with formal interpretation. Please note that the content of model (abstract) was moved to formal interpretation and expanded. So in effect, that is the same proposal. Anyone else care to take a shot at me? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quoting me as agreeing that interpretation (logic) / logical interpretation be merged into mathematical model, but I was proposing model (abstract) / formal interpretation be so merged. If you're saying that those are the same proposal, then let's talk about merging those articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Arthur. I would be in favor of anything that will help readers be able to sort out all the structures, interpretations and models. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Math banner on Talk:Interpretation (logic)

Why do you replace the philosophy banner with a math one? You created that page as a philosophical logic page. I still don't know what is supposed to be on it. Can you explain?

Really, I don't understand the idea you have for arranging several of these articles. Please slow down and explain to some of the other people what it is you would like to get done, so that we can help. At the moment I have been avoiding editing the articles much because I don't know what material they are supposed to contain. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Carl. Thank you for being very patient. Even the couple of days you've given me is certainly more than generous. I have been thinking about what more to tell you about the big picture that I haven't already stated...

• In my mind, I would like to "tell The Formal Language Story" so that average people have a chance at grasping it if they really wanted to.
• I have made some recent additions to Formal language, Formal grammar, Formal proof, and Formal system so as to really try to "frame up" the story. I am a little worried that someone is going to say that it's a lot of redundant content, and remove it. I think it helps people understand what is going on. This makes the articles stand on their own.
• I think wikilinks (in use and in principle) are a good indicator of what content should go in what titled article. In the case of several redirects, they should be mentioned as alternate terminology in the first sentence of the article. This helps avoid duplicate articles/material, organizational issues, etc. In taking a look at what linked to model (abstract), it looked to me like a change was needed.
• I have replaced the redirect to proof theory to an article that addresses Formal proof. This concept is distinct from mathematical proof, in that a mathematical proof, is a type of formal proof. The absence of this distinction the type of thing I am always talking about: a "logical foundations deficiency". The same type of thing was going on with "algorithm is a type of effective method", and "set is an abstract object." Those seemed to have worked out thanks to your help. I would like to frame up interpretation the same way.
• I use the template:logic as my guide for "getting the story straight." Recently I changed the links to Proof (mathematics), and Interpretation (logic), to formal proof and formal interpretation.
• I tend to think of the relevance of the content to be centered around the actual concept, rather than its place within a particular history, field, culture, etc.

Perhaps in the future, I will develop the namespace: interpretation which is currently a redirect into something beginning like: "An interpretation is the designation of meanings to our human experiences...", and then organize starting from there. The formal interpretation is a type of interpretation which is expressed in formal language... I think this over-arching approach helps people really understand things conceptually.

I put the banner back because that is the article that was created irrespective of the original intent. Now it is clearly a mathematical article.

In my view the interpretation (logic) article should focus on the specific logic-mathematical interpretation. There is at least some of material in it which should be moved (or merely copied) over to formal interpretation. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A competent philosopher's opinion

Hey Greg, I found this and thought you might have an opinion. "Plato was strongly influenced by the Pythagoreans, and Plato, in turn, exerted a considerable influence on the development of mathematics in Greece. Plato's influence was not due to any mathematical discoveries he made but rather to his enthusiastic conviction that the study of mathematics furnished the finest training field for the mind, and hence was essential in the cultivation of philosophers... This belief explains the renowned motto over the door of his Academy, 'Let no one unversed in geometry enter here.'" This is from a book by Howard Eves, entitled 'Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics', a wonderful bathroom reader. Given your enthusiasm for logic and seemingly math, I strongly suggest that you pursue formal training in math. It will be rewarding, and you will no doubt succeed, that is, if you choose to accept this advice. Tparameter (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's wonderful advice. I'll let you know how things go. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cal State Chico! Seriously. Looks like no Masters program - but, the Bachelors in Applied would complement your Philosophy studies nicely. Tparameter (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, Bachelors in maths from a US university may be largely insufficient even to start making sense. I used to meet at one quite strong US math department first-year graduate students, graduated from US universities, who did not know what a group was. That department had a 15-year history of no single US-educated graduate student's passing the algebra prelim. The tests that US students take as undergrads have little to do with mathematics (with mathematical reasoning anyway). On the other hand, i do not think that taking university courses in the US is the best way to learn mathematics. Just get yourself some good math textbooks (for example, linear algebra should be quite interesting for a beginner), and do some exercises. In a year or two you will notice a great difference! Good luck! --Cokaban (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Last warning

Main page: WP:HUSH

Gregbard, that you are unable to grasp the huge difference between mathematical models and formal interpretations is no reason to propose merging them when all experts agree that they are completely different things. You are acting like someone who proposes to merge the articles tree and fern because the only ferns he knows are tree ferns. You are being disruptive and you need to stop now. If you don't remove the absurd merger proposal between interpretation (logic) and mathematical model within the next 24 hours, then I will do it and begin the preparation of a user conduct RFC. Examining your past behaviour is a complete and utter waste of my time, and you can be very proud if you get me to this point. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hans, you really need to calm down. If you want to remove the proposal, then remove it, and stop threatening me. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although I don't consider the merge the appropriate trigger. The repurposing of "interpretation" articles seems even more absurd. I think we need to revert them all to the status of last week, and look for traces of, at best, philosophical jargon, from the mathematical articles. But wasn't there already a user conduct RFC? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I am aware of two previous dramatic events, but there is no RFC in the archives. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Gregbard, the "main article" link to WP:HUSH is clearly inappropriate. If your reading comprehension for philosophical texts is of the same quality, this explains many of the problems you are having. I have placed two warnings on your user talk page, not "numerous" ones. They were clearly not false, although you may think they are questionable. The first one was, moreover, relatively inconspicuous, and in neither case did I use a template. I am obviously not trying to "display" anything on your talk page but trying to communicate with you. (In fact, what I did can be interpreted as required before a user conduct per Wikipedia:RFC#Request comment on users.) You are free to remove my messages after (or before, if you wish) reading them. If you don't want further messages from me I will respect that, but you need to say it very clearly. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hans, you are incapable of communicating without being insulting. What do expect to happen when insult my reading comprehension, for instance? This is your last warning Hans. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation versus model

Greg, all of this work you've done combining model and formal interpretation - do you have sources for it? Also, do you know the difference between the discourse, an interpretation, and a model, as used in logic? Or better yet, do you realize these are different entities? Tparameter (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, just noticed the above warning. Well, let me try to clarify the difference, before it's too late.:

The discourse contains primitive terms, like elements, relations, operations, and so forth. It also contains a set of unproved statements about the primitives, which we can call 'axioms' or 'postulates'. All other definitions in the discourse come from the primitives and axioms. 'Theorems' are logically deduced from previous statements.

If for the primitives we substitute definite terms that convert all of the postulates into true statements, then this set of substituted terms are called an interpretation of this particular discourse. If all deductions are correct, then the theorems are now true statements as well. The result of such an interpretation is called a model of this particular discourse.

Hope that helps. Tparameter (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Tparameter and I are going to discuss this at WT:WPM. At least there is a section started there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Des-int.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Des-int.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Des-int.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Image:Des-int.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Des-int.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at [[Talk:Image:Des-int.jpg]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:Image:Des-int.jpg]] with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:Image:Des-int.jpg]].

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you.

The template text doesn't apply exactly, because the situation is not a typical one. Even just reproducing 4-5 pages from a modern book as text would be an obvious copyright violation in most cases. Reproducing them in scanned form is worse because of the additional rights of the publisher in the typesetting. On Google Books this book is only available in Snippet View, which indicates that this book is very likely not free in any sense of the word. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hans, the only point in posting this image is so that people like Carl, Philogo and yourself can understand for yourself about interpretations. I suggest that you get an image viewer and open it before it is deleted. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TheMathPeople

Thank you for filing your report. Do you have any additional evidence that would suggest who the sockpuppeteer is? Please read my comments at the SSP page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

token/type distinction

Greg, You have cited an encyclopedia of philosophy for the token/type distinction, and you have inserted this rhetoric in some articles. I'm curious, can you provide examples in an encyclopedia of philosophy for articles where everything that fits as a token is labeled as such? I'm thinking, if it's not in a phil encyclopedia, it probably shouldn't occur in a less specialized encyclopedia like this. Tparameter (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And as he is so fond of pointing out, this is a general use encyclopedia TheMathPeople (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg, thanks for the reply on my talk page. In it, you said, "You are going to force me to dig up references for a fact which upon expression becomes fairly obvious to anyone. This is the math bias I am talking about." On the first part of the statement, it's not that I necessarily don't agree with your token/type bit. More importantly, I find that it is not the proper place for it, any more than it would be at the article about apples. My point was that if even an encyclopedia of philosophy doesn't make the token/type distinction for every term where it could, then why would a general use encyclopedia? Regarding "math bias", I can only say that I consider logic to be part of mathematics. I would argue that most if not all logicians agree. Nevertheless, if some bit of content is important to the article, it should be in. I just don't think that your bit is in this particular case; and if there are no sources that support your opinion, then we should favor simplicity, and leave it out. Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg, I hope I didn't offend you with the above message - because your response sounds like you are offended. However, I searched the Encyclopedia of Philosophy that you referenced at the Type-token article, and there is no mention of theorem anywhere. So, THAT encyclopedia doesn't find it necessary to discuss this fundamental type/token phenomenon - so why should wikipedia? For the record, I'm open-minded on this, so don't give up on me yet. I would just like to see a source for the claims you make. Remember, that some abstraction is ACTUALLY a type, and that it ACTUALLY has instances (tokens), is unimportant. What is important is that we can verify these things with sources. BTW, I've studied Quine, and logic for that matter. I'm just afraid that some of your tangential links are distracting from the fundamentals of the article topics. Maybe you should develop the token-type pages more fully, and use theorem, number, or whatever as examples? Either way, I mean no harm to you, and I appreciate the intellectual discussion. Tparameter (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended. We are having a wonderful exchange. I am just very concerned about the prevailing culture that sees no value (none! --distraction. --delete it.) in these aspects of the subject. That a theorem or a set or a number is an abstract object is seminal to understanding it fundamentally. The idea that it is distracting is really a phoney issue. We have the ability to clarify (you know...using English.) In view of that fact, the whole "distracting" issue is pretty ridiculous. Even if distraction was a real issue, it still shouldn't cause us to sacrifice the fundamentals. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

True enough. But, please respond to my verifiability point - because this is a key point in this project. Tparameter (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Until I can find some good sources, it brings me back to my original point that some statements stand in need of justification, and others don't. Currently the article lacks interdisciplinary coverage. I created a tag just for this purpose. Alternatively, we could just put a citation tag on the paragraph and leave it in. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg, it sounds like my original feeling that your input was OR was correct. I mean no disrespect by this. Your research may be true, and probably is - but, it's not verifiable. Do you see the distinction? I too have fell prey to this policy guideline, and it's frustrating. Tparameter (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add, FOR EXAMPLE, sets are not universally considered abstract objects, yet without verification you want to claim that theorems are! Greg, please comment on the difference, if there is any. Tparameter (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) The Penelope Maddy reference in the theorem article is unfortunate. Sure there are all kinds of theories out there. I wouldn't call the Maddy thesis a prevailing view however. Carl was open enough to include the abstract object stuff in the article on set with this clarification. To me it is the result of overthinking the criticism for having this stuff in the article in the first place. Years down the road, when the article is super filled out with detail, the maddy stuff deserves its mention. However, it doesn't really merit a mention in the lead.

The prevailing view is that these are abstract objects. I have another alternative available. There is an article called Abstract structure which is in the category mathematical terminology. However I think although this is an accepted term by mathematicians, I don't know that it completely fits as well as abstract object in this case.

With respect, I understand that I will have to get a source. However, you are apparently the only reason I need a source because you are calling it into question. The text had stood for about five months up to now. The claim (at least that it is the prevailing view) is ultimately very verifiable, and I think that is sufficiently obvious. That is why I am identifying this as a symptom of the math-bias. Some claims do and some don't. Invariably that will work against an interdisciplinary coverage. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm a thorn in your side. I will defer to an agreement between any two PhDs in math or logic, however. Possibly one. So, if some editors here with credentials tell me that I am wrong to demand verifiability in this case, then I'll gladly shut up. After all, I don't even have my masters yet. Tparameter (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't really argue with a person being skeptical. It's a wonderful way to be. However, there is a lot more skepticism over these issues than others. It creates a difficult pragmatic reality. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall remind that the text on interpretation (logic) also stood for months in the shape that Gregbard kept it, until i've paid attention to it. So staying for months is not in itself a justification for absent/misleading citations. Other than that i have no other comments as i have not read the whole of the discussion. If the question was whether a theorem was an abstract object, i do not know, have never thought in these terms. I know that it is not a mathematical object (though mathematical logic studies certain mathematical objects, sentences in formal languages, which are also called theorems, and this can be misleading for beginners). I think that Gregbard shares this view. I just wanted to say that IMHO Tparameter has a right to ask for sources. --Cokaban (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy doesn't seem to place much priority on the (probably not quite fringe) Maddy position. Their statement on the matter is "...Thus it is universally acknowledged that numbers and the other objects of pure mathematics are abstract, whereas rocks and trees and human beings are concrete." I am shocked that I had to argue this with mathematicians. It's obvious. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The question here is not whether numbers are abstract objects. The question is whether a theorem, as you seem to claim, includes both a natural language statement and a formal language statement, and whether the statement is the theorem, or is a token of it. Please discuss with me on the talk page; I have not reverted yet as a courtesy, but I disagree with the claim you are making there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gregbard, i understand what you are saying here, and it seems that here we can come to a consensus if we try. If an abstract object is the same as what i call a mathematical object, then i believe that you (Gragbard) in some other discussion already agreed with me that theorems were not mathematical/abstract objects. But if mathematical and abstract are not the same, then i cannot say much because I am not very familiar with this terminology (abstract, concrete), it is beyond my competence, and then i can in principle accept that theorems are abstract. For me there are mathematical objects, and theorems in the usual sense (which you can publish, or get some prize for proving it, or confuse you students with it -- if you cannot explain the proof) are not mathematical object, but numbers and sets (when used in mathematics) are. On the other hands, there are mathematical objects called theorems, which are studied in mathematical logic, and which should not be confused with actual theorems. This is why mathematical logic should not be confused with the "actual" (or common-sense?) logic, which is used to prove actual theorems.

Among non-mathematical objects i can also distinguish different levels of "abstractness". For example, the word "dog" for me is more abstract than any actual dog. Actual theorems are approximately as abstract as the word "dog", and maybe also as abstract as numbers, when the numbers are used by an accountant-non-mathematician. However, actual theorems are less abstract than mathematical objects, which include numbers and sets (when used by mathematicians), and theorems in formal languages (as studied in mathematical logic). Do you see what i mean? --Cokaban (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg, trying to find some sources for your abstract object and token/type rhetoric, and I have found information that suggests there exists some debate in metaphysics as to whether or not there is such a thing as abstract objects in the first place. What say you? Tparameter (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that there are reasonable limits on the consideration of metaphysics in editing the wikipedia. How do we know there is a Wikipedia? We bracket these questions and then proceed on. There are all kinds of theories out there. We are obligated to cover the prevailing views. They are not hard to identify, and they are usually few in number. Certainly the view that theorems are abstract object is almost universally prevailing view (as the SEP stated.) After that we can put forward views as they come to be known on a for what its worth basis, and in their proper context. Some people who are looking up "theorem" in WP really want to understand it intellectually. That includes a lot of non-math people. Can you understand that? It really screws things up to exclude for instance that a series of stars and daggers can be a theorem, as in the example at talk:theorem. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: 'Some people who are looking up "theorem" in WP really want to understand it intellectually. That includes a lot of non-math people. Can you understand that?' C'mon Greg. Get real. That's borderline strawman, if not downright ad hom. Are you suggesting that I'm not on your intellectual level, or what? Let's keep this serious. I also want to understand theorem on an intellectual level. Oh, and I'm primarily a computer scientist, not a "math person", per se, so give it a rest. You already conceded that verifiability is important, if I remember correctly. So, since you don't have a source for your claims (type-token wrt theorem), please explain to me why YOU seem to know that this is the whole key to understanding theorem on an intellectual level, but the various forms of theorems and the various ideas about theorems that are verifiable are not. Tparameter (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, its not a straw man at all. People come to this article about something obscure as a theorem, and you don't see the need to clarify these things, because it has already been sufficiently explicated to a level of your satisfaction. That is in fact, an issue of intellectual values. Would you like to hear some actual POV/OR from myself? Theorems are intellectual values. They exist on different levels of existence like everything else: a wedding ring is the physical object, but also is the meaningful object "behind it." That's my way of seeing it, however that isn't what I'm writing about. The type-token distinction is the prevailing terminology today.

I will be producing sources for my claims, as they do exist. In the mean time please stop beating me up over it. I am not as close to the library as some. You should go there and research it yourself. It may take me some time. Meanwhile, I am wondering if I can sufficiently explain it so as to make it clear. Carnap, Tarski and Quine all care about the type-token distinction, and so should you. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not beating you up about it. I'm assuming good faith and trying to find sources. But, I question your claim that type-token is key to understanding theorem, intellectually or otherwise. You keep commenting about how surprised you are that some people haven't heard these key points, and you imply that those of us that want your claims verified are somehow missing the "intellectual" points - yet there are no sources to be easily found. You studied this - which text book did you use? Tparameter (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Template on Theorem

I replied at User talk:CRGreathouse#Tag.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ping-ping! CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Telishment

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Telishment, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Logical consequence

Logical consequence can be defined either syntactically or semantically. I provided two references where it is defined semantically. It is simply incorrect to claim that syntactic consequence is a synonym of logical consequence, as if this is a universally agreed fact, when in reality logical consequence is a matter of ongoing discussion, with several different possibilities for definition. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If that's the case, then there should be a section that explicates the syntactic/semantic issues. The article is in category syntax, but not semantics. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How does the categorization of the article affect anything? I agree the article should cover more - it's essentially a stub. But in expanding it you need to take more care to look into the broader aspects of previous research. In this case, there are a lot of philosophy papers on logical consequence that can be located with google searches. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If an article is in a category, usually it should justify that in the article somehow.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That, or the category may be incorrect. In this case, you added the category yourself [4] when you added the claim that logical consequence is synonymous with syntactic consequence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So do you think it is correct or incorrect? Shall we add cat:semantics, or remove cat:syntax?

I don't think the syntax category is very apt, but I don't know that there is a good existing category. What would be good is a subcategory of Category:Logic, something like Category:Fundamental concepts in logic. In general, I think Category:Logic would benefit from the creation of a ew subcategories.

By the way, I was just looking through the Stanford Encyclopdia article on logical consequence, which I think has pointers to several interesting issues the article can cover. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning...

I can't come up with a non-templated warning which meets with WP:NPA, so consider this:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:WikiProject Epistemology

I have nominated Category:WikiProject Epistemology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Skomorokh 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the proposed deletion Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation Chico DYK

On 19 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Chico, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of North State Symphony

A tag has been placed on North State Symphony requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd tag

You tagged Talk:American Craftsman as being associated with WikiProject Philosophy. Seems a very odd choice. Was this a typo, or is something going on here that I'm missing? - Jmabel | Talk 23:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

At some point, everything in "Arts movements" was tagged as part of the aesthetics task force. I think some members were borderline. Feel free to remove those you feel are not connected to aesthetics. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sealcityofchico.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sealcityofchico.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Unequibryologic Reasoning

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Unequibryologic Reasoning, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Unequibryologic Reasoning is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Unequibryologic Reasoning, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Random-access memory

Hi, Gregbard. Can we discuss the inclusion of the file box in Random-access memory on its Talk page? We've already another editor express thoughts about it. Thanks. -charleca (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Extremely complete

I am not sure if I have heard this term before, and I couldn't find it on Google Books or Google Scholar. But it certainly makes sense. Could you please add a source in a footnote so it's clear it isn't a neologism? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

IP edits

I'm sad to see the IP edits to your talk page. It blatantly appears to be somebody hiding their identity by editing while logged out. Even if we disagree about various articles I don't think the disagreements warrant that sort of thing. If necessary I could semiprotect your user page to keep logged-out editors from editing it. For what it's worth, both of the IP addresses used geolocate to California. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Carl, that's thoughtful of you to offer. I think I'll be all right. Stay cool. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron

I notice some of your templates on your user page, and I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever to Wikipedia, you may find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please. "Maybe" is a perfectly good word, but it doesn't mean the same thing as "may be". Michael Hardy (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a valid deduction?

Is this called a valid deduction, or is there another name for it (I'm asking because it doesn't appear to be a syllogism)?

A=B, A did C, therefore B did C

1. "Jane, Mary, and Bill attended the planning meeting for the sit-in."
2. "Jane, Mary, and Bill were important leaders in the Civil Rights movement."
3. "Some important leaders in the Civil Rights movement attended the planning meeting for the sit-in."

Many thanks!

--Phenylalanine (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a valid deduction. It doesn't look like a syllogism, but it can be faithfully reformulated so that it fits just right into the form of a syllogism:

• All Xs are Ys : All Xs(Jane, Mary and Bill) are Ys(people who attended the planning meeting).
• All Xs are Zs : All Xs(Jane, Mary and Bill) are Zs(important leaders in the Civil Rights movement)
• Some Zs are Ys: Some Zs(important leaders in the Civil Rights movement) are Ys(people who attended the planning meeting).

This particular form of syllogism is valid! There are 256 ways to arrange the whole business of "All Xs are not Ys", etcetera, into three parts two premises and a conclusion. There are only 24 valid ones. They used to call them all by weird names. This one is called "Barbari".

When you express it using the symbolic logic, that is not what we call a syllogism. It's a valid form of first order logic. This is a richer language to express such things precisely. Since it is a valid form, it can also be proven that when you interpret the A, the B, and C as "Jane, Mary and Bill", "people who attended the meeting", etc. that you will get a true sentence.

I invite your correspondence, Good luck on it. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation! Would it still be a "Barbari", if instead of "Jane, Mary and Bill", we only have "Jane":

1. "Jane attended the planning meeting for the sit-in."
2. "Jane was an important leader in the Civil Rights movement."
3. "An important leader in the Civil Rights movement attended the planning meeting for the sit-in."

Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes! It's the form of it that they have in common. It is also the form of it we call "valid". Any time you have the "All A are B, All A are C, therefore Some Bs are Cs" form it's Barbari and its valid. When you fill in the variables that's called the semantics. The difference between filling in just "Jane" instead of "Jane, Mary and Bill" is that it is a different interpretation of the same valid form. Also "Some" really just means "At least one" so "Jane" will qualify fine as Some Zs("An important leader").

When you put things into Barbari form it will always be valid, however it is still possible express an "unsound argument" with it. For instance, suppose I happen to know that Jane was not important to civil rights at all, but rather just attended a rally once. The form of the argument is still valid. The argument is "unsound" if it depends on false premises. Soundness is different than validity. Soundness is a semantic concept and validity is a syntactic concept. When you fill in all the variables of a valid form in such a way that all the sentences come out to be true, its called a sound argument or a "valid interpretation". Was Mary there too? If so that means that the formulation with "Jane, Mary and Bill" is a valid interpretation. If Jane only attended one rally then neither is a valid interpretation. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This really clarifies the subject for me. Much appreciated! Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I am having trouble with the following examples.

I am wandering whether they represent valid deductions, or simply a summary of the premises (I think the second example is a valid deduction...)?

Example 1:

1. "A" says that "X is true". (All As are Cs)
2. "B" states that "Z is true". (All Bs are Ds)
3. "Z" is true and "X" is true is a contradiction. (No Cs are Ds; no Ds are Cs)
4. Therefore, "B" does not agree with "A" that "X is true". (No Bs are Cs; no As are Ds)

Example 2:

1. "A" says that "X is true because "Y is true".
2. "B" states that "Z is true".
3. "Z" is true and "Y" is true is a contradiction.
4. Therefore, "B" would not agree with "A" that "X is true because Y is true".

Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Now you are kind of layering three different kind of things here and making it complex. We are always very nit-picky in logic. You have to be careful. First of all it is important to note that we are asking about the validity of arguments made by some third person talking about the claims of A and B? Right? Otherwise all we have is a A and B making claims. Furthermore, the claims are of the "All As are Bs" variety (they have the quantifiers "All" or "Some"). So that's pretty complex. Perhaps you could just tell me the nature of the disagreement!

I see here you have two different languages going on overlapping and mish-mashing each other. Those letters we are using as variables are supposed to be filled by objects. That works for the first part, but it doesn't make sense to then say that "Z" and "X" are contradictory with each other. We use that term when we are using truth-functional-variables which are filled by sentences which are either true or false not objects.

I think in the first example you are mainly concerned to know about the validity of this part:

• All As are Cs
• All Bs are Ds
• No Cs are Ds
• No Ds are Cs
• Therefore
• No Bs are Cs and no As are Ds

Yes that is a valid form. It doesn't matter that there are four premises. You can always reformulate this kind of thing into two or more syllogisms. In this case if you do, it will work out valid.

The second example is worded entirely in terms of truth-functional logic

• Y->X
• Z
• [(Z->~Y) and (Y->~Z)] (the two are contradictory)
• Therefore
• ~(Y->X)

It turns out to be invalid if this is what is intended. We can determine that Y is false because Z is true and Z implies ~Y. However, whether or not Y implies X is not effected if we later find out that Y is true or Y is false. Y still implies X.

Let me know if there are any further details or clarifications, etc. I hope it helps. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the arguments are based on examples used in this essay. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Unless they really upset you, perhaps you should not delete personal attacks in talk pages on your good self, since such attacks are to the discredit of the attacker rather than the victim and them might be useful evidence of poor behaviour on the part of the culprit.--Philogo (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At some point I may compile a collection, however I am deleting it for now. The way I see it, it is a discredit to WP:MATH because they have developed a shark-tank culture that cause this. At some point WP should establish sanctions for groups. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have noted you cricised WP:MATH and once the "math dpt" in the past, for making perosnal attacks and now for developing "shark-tank culture". How can attrib guilt in this way if the attacks are anonymous? If not anon, why do you not comaplain about the iddividuals (rather than groups to which they may belong)? Why would folks interested in maths pursue you in Wiki to insult you? --Philogo (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How can I attribute guilt? It's pretty obvious that this is coming from someone in the math department. Furthermore, they have collectively jumped on me in the past at the prompting of such monsters, rather than moderate. I choose not to respond to juvenile attacks like these ones. However, if there is some kind of article content to be discussed, I will discuss it.

I used to be a "Behavior Specialist" at a home for developmentally disabled adults (3yrs). I see these sort of things ("acting out") differently than other people. This acting out is probably the result of some mental illness, so I would rather just let it be, than escalate. The attacker seems bent on characterizing me as some kind of flailing armed hollerer, etc. This is called projection. The fact is, that I am very expressive and I use em-PHA-sis. However, during my time working with violent and aggressive adults, I was pretty well known as a very cool customer. I think if I can coolly handle being physically attacked by a half naked man with feces in his hands while ripping my shirt, etc; that I can respond to a disagreement on the WP without any mental disquiet. Interestingly, it is the fact that I communicate my view effectively that these type of people hate the most, and that is also why I am targeted. Inabiliy to effectively communicate was the number one cause of problem behaviors from the clients at the facility where I worked.

The math department is a shark-tank. This is largely because at least some of the people who get into math are introverted, narrow, neurotic, and even some slightly autistic people too I suppose. Their identity is wrapped up in their activities here, and the whole WP community has to suffer for it. Unfortunately the math people who are are actually mature adults do not see a need to do anything about their immature brethren. They aren't psych counselors, they are math people.

I appreciate your concern, however, you are also a little guilty of encouraging them. That is something I wouldn't do to you because I believe in edifying the the people I work with, especially in the Philosophy department. That's a belief that I seem to be alone in, so I have given up on it somewhat (you may have gotten the sense of this recently).

At some point they had a big discussion about how readable math articles were for average people. I found them hopelessly oblivious to the fact that anyone who tries to edit these articles for some audience other than their narrow group is run off.

Wikipedia is build by consensus. That means that we should really be more forgiving of each other and willing to live with content that we don't necessarily like. I do it all the time (not only out of helplessness to change it either.) There is a huge double standard at work here, and if I applied the same principle of action to math articles that they do, there would be citation tags and banners all over the place. That would get very annoying after a while. I do not find that practice helpful to WP as a whole. We are perfectly capable of handling these things in the talk space.

I agree with Susan Haacks's view that "Philosophical logic" is an unfortunate term. I believe only people who wish to distance themselves from philosophy use it. I would be in favor of abolishing the article and category of that name, and moving all of that content to a "Philosophy of logic" article and category. However I do not agree with your practice of adding (philosophy) or even (logic and philosophy) to titles because it portrays terms EVERYONE should be using as technical terms. That does not help the "cause" of philosophy at all. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't really mind what too much about titles, bar Orwellian new-speak, although I have my preferences. Why did "symbolic logic" become "mathematical logic"? Sex appeal? Does anybody know? Re ability to communicate, have you noticed how the best minds speak the clearest? Compare Russell with the avarage academic article. Or Galileo. Or, and its surprising, Einstein. I have been reading "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (phew!) Its crystal clear! I can even follow (most of) the maths. Wonderful example early on there a of a thought-experiment. I have never knowingly encouraged lunatics, but if I agree with what someone says I have a habit of saying so. I am slowly ploughing through Philosophy of Logic; it will take a long time. I have spawned off truthbearers and working on that right now.

You have an unfortunate habit, may I suggest, of exagerating peoples' points of views in order to criticise them more easily. Great technique in a debate or in politics (you can't kid a kidder, I got the t-shirt way back) but not in the study. Strawmanning I call it. It may convince an audience but not the person strawmanned. Does not matter in politics - not trying to convince your opponent. You know perectly well, don;t you, that I do not have a "habit" of "adding (philosophy) or even (logic and philosophy) to titles because it portrays terms EVERYONE should be using as technical terms." You will know I have added (philosphy) or (logic) to a few articles, that's not a habit (your playing to the crowd) and I have done so when I think that it IS a "technical" term used in the respective subject. Less of the Rhet. please.

I do not know whether everybody should be using the terms concerned, what sort of should is that? I am not convinced that if you point out that a term has a special meaning in a partuclar subject it prevents or discourages people from using it, although I am no sociologist. Do you really believe that an encycopeadia (or dictionary) with entries like thread(mechanics) and thread(haberdashery), force(law), force(physics), argument(maths), argument(logic) proposition(philosophy) proposition(romance) discourages people from using the words thread, force, argument and proposition? If you do, on what basis? Some study sowmehere? Intuition? Personal experience? Presumably if the trend continues there will be no words left in English with more than one meaning. Well it's is a colourful idea but I can't see that happening bar by use force, if you follow the thread of my argument and catch my drift.--Philogo (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrectly tagged Anarchism task force articles

I would like to document Category:Incorrectly tagged Anarchism task force articles but I can find nowhere that it is used. User:Skomorokh (the creator) has indicated you are the one to ask about it. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 10:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

When I set up the banner scheme originally, it would put certain articles into a category Category:Incorrectly tagged Philosophy articles. The problem is, I still don't know what would cause it to put some articles in and not others!?!? It seemed like a lot of articles, and there was nothing wrong with most of them. I guess I forgot about it, and now it appears to have been ?fixed?

There is a "Needs attention" option which is triggered by "attention=yes" which works fine, but I think is underused. I like that much better than front page tagging. At some point I would like to get access to that banner again, but I am not an admin. Be well,

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Comstock

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Christopher Comstock, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bobwolfe/gen/mn/m2087x2088.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christopher Comstock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Devonshire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Rational Skepticism

Please restore the Rational Skepticism project. Several of us are working there, the project is active and there's no note asking to discuss your proposal your action or to say why you have done that. I used the page a couple of days ago and you had not left a message about this so I assume it is a mistake and hope that your error doesn't mean that we have lost all of our tags. I sincerely hope you have a backup you can restore. Thank you. Joolzzt (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The project isn't being deleted, but rather merged with WikiProject Pseudoscience. There was a discussion about it on the project talk pages. Greg Bard (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion afterwards, sorry for leaping to the wrong conclusion, a couple of us just panicked at it disappearing. I believe that as the inactive project, pseudoscience should have been moved to Rat Skep, not the other way round. Also, more importantly, everything Pseudoscience comes under heading Rational Skepticism, but not vice versa, eg I have been updating the Edinburgh Skeptics page. Many ppl in Rational Skepticism work on updates that are not related to pseudoscience so this change makes them homeless. :-( I have asked the RatSkeps to consider a reverse merger, is it to late to consider that? Joolzzt (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, look again, a little more closely. The inactive project was redirected to the active Skepticism project. There no longer is a pseudoscience project, but rather an expanded skepticism project. Everything is being moved under skepticism, the more broad area. Nobody is homeless at all. Greg Bard (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to go back to Thursday and reboot myself as I think my brain crashed somewhere. I saw my link didn't work and I was in a rush to an appt and obviously didn't even read what the redirect was telling me :-( I'll try and use my brain before speaking next time :-) Apologies Greg. Joolzzt (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Glad you caught my revert. Apologies. Struck me as some POV sneakiness. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. Good keeping an eye out!Greg Bard (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Category:A-Class Rational Skepticism articles

Hello Gregbard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:A-Class Rational Skepticism articles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: When the category is empty, use {{db-c1}} to request speedy deletion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's gone anyway. It sounds like bureaucracy without much common sense. Greg Bard (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with old redirects sitting around; they're cheap, and there's nothing sloppy about them, especially as mergers typically involve retention of redirects, not deletion. This kind of thing isn't what G6 is meant to do, and there's no other speedy criterion that applies to them. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy reference resources

Hi, I noticed you reverted my changes to Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project and PhilPapers that removed Category:Philosophy reference resources. If you look at the category page, you'll notice that it's an administrative category for templates and that it's not part of the normal category structure for articles. Articles don't belong to such category.

If you think that category for articles about philosophy reference resources makes sense (I'm not sure it does, but I don't actually care), then I think the current category should be renamed (maybe to something like “Philosophy reference resources templates”?) and new category just for articles should be created and added to the normal category structure for articles (e.g. it should be somewhere under Category:Philosophy, which the current category isn't).

What do you think? User<Svick>.Talk(); 17:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I created the category, and no, it isn't just for templates. I don't really se a need to create a whole new category for every namespace. I'll take a closer look at the whole situation and see if there isn't some better way to organize things. Greg Bard (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there should be a separate category for every namespace, but that Wikipedia administration should be clearly separated from Wikipedia content. And this is an administration category, so I think normal articles shouldn't be in it. User<Svick>.Talk(); 19:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy reference resources

per your request at TfD, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Resources, which has all 53 transclusions of the templates, but reformatted. I arranged them alphabetically, but they could also be put in tree structure by regrouping and indenting (e.g., see here). Frietjes (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Defining pseudophilosophy

There are points raised at Category talk:Pseudophilosophy#Boundary limits and Talk:Pseudophilosophy#More references that you may want to discuss. Thanks. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even know that this category existed. I saw, with a big smile, that you added it to Mysticism and Esotericism. Looking forward to read the definitions. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pseudophilosophy

Category:Pseudophilosophy, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine Edit Warring

Please stop instantly reverting constructive changes to the Alternative Medicine page. Saying things like "No, there was a consensus for a long time to not portray this nonsense as a valid alternative. If we have a different consensus every month or so, we need to start topic banning the true believers so the responsible editors can keep up with all of them." and "reverted invalid POV editing / If you want to compromise, lets start from "invalid, fraudulent, dangerous, nonfactual, belief based, etcetera." and not giving reasons for your goaltending on the talk page makes it very hard to believe you are operating in good faith. I will file a notice if I have to, but I would like to encourage you to constructively participate in a good compromise first. Wkerney (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, Constructivism as Philosophies of education

There is an attempt by Philosophers to merge the Education and Psychology versions of the Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constructivism, which I think would lead to edit wars and great confusion among the three disciplines. I was pleased to see that you objected to the merger on Humanism Talk page and on the Cognitivism Talk page. Using your same line of reasoning that you used for Humanism and Cognitivism, would you be willing to object to merging the Behaviorism articles as well?Stmullin (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Grammar in Type-Token distinction

I didn't revert the Occurrences section, so I don't understand why that got reverted. I did change the Quine sentence, which is ungrammatical at present.Dylan Hunt (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That particular edit caused for the last sentence in the paragraph to be false. Furthermore, the sentence as is "A rose is a rose is a rose" is not intended to be an example of grammar. It serves solely as an example of the use-mention distinction which is taken from poetry. Greg Bard (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Noetics

Category:Noetics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

BlueWare (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Republican

Mitch Needelman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Republican

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Plato, Confucius, Avicenna.png

A file you uploaded, File:Plato, Confucius, Avicenna.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

Please can you discuss the reason for your revert on the Alt med talk page. Thanks Aspheric (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Reference format

Greetings and thank you for your contributions to WP. I have proposed a format for references on Alternative medicine. I wanted to let you know and give you an opportunity to comment here. Good day! - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Mitch Needelman.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mitch Needelman.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Professionals - notice of discussion

You may be interested in the deletion proposal related to Category: Professionals. Regards, XOttawahitech (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy of Sport(s)

See the talk page. I think the basis of your name change is invalid. BabyJonas (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hannes Leitgeb, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conditionals and Modality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Effective method

Hi Gregbard, maybe you remember the edits on effective method some months ago? I had a neatnik surge ;) and tried to clean it up a bit, as well as add some smaller notes. I'm not sure whether I didn't mess with the more philosophical aspects (inadvertently). Maybe you'd like to comment on it, or straight out improve my edit? Best, --Se'taan (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Just informing you of a minor question added to the talk page. Only bother if you want to delve into the messy details, since it will already be dealt with by others. I just don't want to disfigure "your" article ;-) --Se'taan (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit

Your edited text,

"* when applied to a problem from its class, it always produces a correct answer, and never produces an incorrect answer "

is utterly redundant, because as soon as the method produces a correct answer, we know that it does not produce an incorrect answer. So your text has the same meaning as

"* when applied to a problem from its class, it always produces a correct answer ".

That is correct; the old text simply broke that into two steps: first, the method always produces some answer. Second, that answer is always correct. Unfortunately, it appears that you did not understand what was going on with the original text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Carl how clueless is this issue?! I know that the two are logically equivalent. This is an encyclopedia. Rhetoric matters. The phrasing is such that it makes a point explicit so that a novice in the subject area will get the point (i.e. closure). The math department has the abyssal record of being incomprehensible to readers so why don't you accept a little advice on the art of writing a math article.Greg Bard (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Carl: and Greg -- ya'll know about the edit warring rule without somebody posting a template on your talk page, right? Here: Talk:Effective method is where you should be discussing the edit, and preferably without commenting on each other. NE Ent 01:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 22:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Jan Hartman (philosopher)

Greg, do you think this person is notable? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty easy in the philosophy department. The guy seems to have a lot of publications. Greg Bard (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How about Andrew Pyle (philosopher)? --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Evaluative diversity

Could you perhaps have a look at this article (or bring it to the attention of other knowledgeable editors)? I don't know enough of the subject to decide whether or not it contains inadmissible OR. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Two additional requests: 1. If additional changes need to be made to bring the article to C class, can you please suggest what they might be? 2. Can you tell me what the process might be to have this reviewed for importance in areas other than philosophy (especially in the areas of diversity/discrimination)? Langchri (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adrian Piper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Otherness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Philosophical films

Category:Philosophical films, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Christian Swartz.xcf listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Christian Swartz.xcf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — trlkly 17:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy disambiguation

Category:Philosophy disambiguation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thales of Miletus on Philosophy of education

There is a vote on the Philosophy of education page concerning Thales of Miletus . . . I need some support with his defense . . . could you visit that page and cast your vote? Stmullin (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy of science overhaul underway

Calling all active Philosophy of Science Task Force members. Your input is wanted at the Philosophy of science Talk page. -Hugetim ^(talk) 14:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy redirects

Category:Philosophy redirects, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Sr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Alan Baker (shogi) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alan Baker (shogi) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Baker (shogi) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Kentucky county judges

Category:Kentucky county judges, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Greg Bard (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Wiley F. Cox.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wiley F. Cox.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Alexander D. MacWilliam.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Alexander D. MacWilliam.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Merrill P. Barber.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Merrill P. Barber.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Denialism = not Pseudoscience?

I thought denialism was just a type of pseudoscience. Care to explain why you don't? Jinkinson talk to me 19:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I switched the places of the categories. Pseudoscience is just one type of denialism, and not all denialism is about scientific facts. Greg Bard (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

edit warring

Hi Greg, I've just noticed that you've been engaged in a long-term low-grade edit war w.r.t placing the category Category:Pseudoscience on Category:Alternative medicine. See: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

This categorization has been discussed on the talk page, and a consensus was arrived at that this didn't apply. You have also been reverted a number of times. I suggest you make your arguments on talk and try to establish a new consensus, but cease the edit warring or I will report it to the edit warring board.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to post a notice to the Skepticism project, and this nonsense will be over. You are wasting my and everyone else's time.Greg Bard (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Greg, you may believe it is nonsensus, but I shouldn't have to remind you that we work by consensus here. Notify whoever you like, just please make sure it's neutral; I've started a discussion at the alternative medicine category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The consensus has been established, and I have been through this before with someone coming in late to the party referring to some long ago overturned consensus. Greg Bard (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ethical issues in medicine

Category:Ethical issues in medicine, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wang minan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modern literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Freeloading

You have about an hundred user pages. In my view, creating user pages with no intention of moving them to mainspace constitutes using Wikipedia as a free host. To pick seven specific examples, none of your /Florida/ bios have been touched in the last eleven months. Do you ever intend to publish them? We have now imposed a six month limit on abandoned AfC submissions. Please explain why I should not delete your /Florida/ group (and probably several other pages) as abandoned drafts. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This threat is completely uncalled for. Is there some kind of deadline policy that you can cite concerning unedited userpages (I don't see how AfC is relevant in the least)? The ones you refer to happen to be subjects for which infomation is difficult to come by (not that it is any of your business). All my user content is clearly in support of Wikipedia contributions. Furthermore, I am a very active contributor. It is reasonable that I should have a substantial userspace for drafts. I do go through and clean it up on occasion, and I am diligent about deleting drafts which have moved to article space. Those occasions have numbered in the dozens just in the past year. Make NO attempt to delete ANYTHING in my userspace without my proposal to do so. For my part, I will go through with a clean up very soon. Greg Bard (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Greg, Thanks for your edits on the Beatriz Precadio page. It seems like you are a pretty regular and great editor. Do you know about WikiConUSA2014 happening in NYC this year? Maybe you would want to apply for a travel scholarship and come? http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Main_Page

Thank you so much. It doesn't sound like I'm going to make it, but perhaps someday, I will. Greg Bard (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks

Hi, admins don't have to update links on user pages after renaming a category, but I did so as a gift. [10] Of course, you're welcome to keep the redlink if it's of sentimental value. – Fayenatic London 09:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I appreciate the spirit in which it was done, but that particular category deletion was poorly informed, so I have to consider my options.Greg Bard (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jennifer Lackey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Assertion and Saint Mary's College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi Gregbard, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Metaphysical terms in René Guénon works

Hello,

Thank you for your much better categorization. Do you have an idea why the page appears falsely in "W" and not "M" in this page: [11] ?

Thanks again, - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 19:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: I got it know, it's the "DEFAULT SORT" item. Don't you think it would be better in "M" ? - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 19:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it so that it shows up under "G" for Guénon. Greg Bard. I don't think "M" would be very helpful in a Metaphysics category. (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Chico Midtown Station.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kellogg (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Kellogg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield City Clerk

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield City Clerk. Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC) --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield City Attorney

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield City Attorney. Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC) --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sub-categories

Edward Bullough

I see you have undone my removal of the category Academics of the University of Cambridge on the basis that this is not a sub-category of an existing category.

This is not correct. Please view:

• Category:Fellows of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge

You will see that this is a sub-category of:

• Category:Fellows of colleges of the University of Cambridge

This in turn is a sub-category of:

• Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge

This is entirely correct as any fellow of a Cambridge College is ipso facto an academic of Cambridge University. Under Wikipedia convention a categorisation should only be made at the lowest level of a hierarchy.

--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but is a "fellow" synonymous with "faculty member" in Britain or are some faculty members fellows and some not? If it's just another term for faculty member then you are correct. My main concern was listing this person as a faculty member. Please do revert me if that is already accounted.Greg Bard (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fellowship of an Oxbridge college is not in any way connected with Faculty membership. To be a member of either Oxford or Cambridge university requires one to be a member of one of its colleges; there is no such thing as direct membership of the university. Those who are employed within the university (as opposed to studying at either undergraduate or post graduate level) as an academic will all be fellows of one of the constituent colleges. A college fellow is ipso facto an "academic of the university."

A further diffusion (as per WP:Diffuse) of the category Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge by faculty, i.e. Faculty of Mathematics, Classics, Engineering etc, would be possible. I embarked on such an exercise about 3 years ago but, following a Wikipedia discussion, it was deemed to be "categorisation too far" and was all reversed.

I hope that assists. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Politician articles

Hi Gregbard. Is there any way that you could avoid (for a lack of a better term) spamming the infoboxes of politician articles with citations? I've noticed this a few times and it frankly makes the info contained in the infobox hard to read. Usually the cites can be in the actual written prose (birth/death dates, term dates, etc.), which is a better alternative in my view (these dates should be mentioned there anyways as the infobox merely reiterates what is in the article for better accessibility). Thanks, Connormah (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see that the MOS is to put the citations in the text rather than the template. It seems to me to be the better way to account for this information. Not all of the actual information in the template actually makes it into the text. I know some such templates even provide for a references section. I've done over a hundred this way, and I would be hard pressed to change it at this point. However, I will see what I can do. At some point in the future, I will revisit all of the ones I feel mostly responsible for, and with the AWB, I will be straightening things up. I will make that one of my areas of attention. Greg Bard (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a bit of a try on John Marvin (Connecticut politician), and while I was, I really had a hard time of it. Then I checked Wikipedia:INFOBOXREF#References_in_infoboxes, and, as it turns out, the policy is not to prohibit references in infoboxes at all. I really believe this is for the best. A) The infobox is at the top of the article, so subsequent refernces can be invoked with the abbreviated <ref name="refname"/> form, and B) the individual datum is on a line by itself rather than among other text, making it far more easily organized and read in the source code. Greg Bard (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Abhinivesha

Abhinivesha has been deleted as a copyright violation, as the material is copied from Audi, Robert, ed. (1995). Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-521-40224-7. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Please follow the guidelines for moving articles

You moved theories of religions twice without prior discussion or announcement. There were indications that the move could be controversial, so you should have done so.

See Wikipedia:Moving_articles#Before_moving_a_page Next time I will report your behavior on an appriopiate notice board. Thanks in advance. Andries (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's an over-reaction. We have a proposal to rename another category, and this is consistent with that discussion. Greg Bard (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did n't u explain that with a link to the discussion on the talk page before moving? Andries (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Overreaction? May be, but my time on Wikipedia has become very limited and your edit is not something I can undo myself, so I am not as patient as I used to be. Andries (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Hernández–Capron Trail

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Hernández–Capron Trail, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/florida/Brevard-County-History.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Hernández–Capron Trail and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Hernández–Capron Trail, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Hernández–Capron Trail with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Hernández–Capron Trail. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Hernández–Capron Trail saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you wish to resume editing, it may be necessary for you to demonstrate your understanding of these policies and reassure the community of your willingness to comply. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gregbard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See attached. I have stated that I will respect the copyright policy and be more careful in the future. Greg Bard (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Judging by the conversation below, your understanding of what constitutes a copyright violation seems to be vastly different than the rest of the community's opinion of what constitutes a copyright violation. To be comfortable unblocking you, I would expect to see not only that you intend to abide by "the copyright policy" but also some explanation of what you understand our copyright policy to cover and not cover, especially taking into consideration your claims that some previous edits of yours were made under a "different standard" of copyright policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were long ago advised of copyright policies on Wikipedia. You have been the subject of a WP:CCI since 2013 (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130330). I started working on your CCI in sympathy to what I believed was your concern that it had been sitting without completion for so long, but as I do routinely checked your recent contribs to see if the issue is resolved. With what I found at Hernández–Capron_Trail (one example at Talk:Hernández–Capron_Trail), I feel I have no choice but to block you pending some plausible indication that you understand and are willing to comply with our copyright policies. At this point, barring some very good explanation for your continuing to copy such content, it seems that the WP:CCI will have to be expanded to include your recent contributions, and it is not fair to ask the community to bear this burden. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel that this is unwarranted. I have been cooperating with the advice given to me, as you can see directly in my most recent edit to Hernández–Capron_Trail. All of the questionable material has been removed. So this is unwarranted. I am at a library, and as a result ALL of the computers here are also blocked. This is an over-reaction, and would like to continue in my cooperative efforts to deal with any issues that arise. If I am not unblocked immediately, I will be stuck at the library (the only place I edit these days) for three hours, just awaiting a reply. Greg Bard (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about your cleaning up after your copyright violations; this is about your not doing them. You were warned over a year ago to stop. I have just identified another copyright issue from you that postdates your CCI. On 27 February 2014, you created the article Mark Sension with the following:

Source	Source text	Article text
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=30091962	Mark St. John was made a freeman in 1664, a constable in 1669, and a representative to the colonies from Norwalk in 1672. He was the constable of Norwalk at the time of his father's death, and he certified the death date of his father in 1669. At the Norwalk Town Meeting held March 5, 1657, Mark St. John (Sension) and three others were to provide a good and sufficient "wolfe-pitt". He received Lot #20 in the Norwalk division of land.	Sension was made a freeman in 1664, a constable in 1669, and a deputy to the General Assembly from Norwalk in 1672. He was the constable of Norwalk at the time of his father's death, and he certified the death date of his father in 1669. At the Norwalk Town Meeting held March 5, 1657, Sension and three others were tasked with providing a good and sufficient "wolfe-pitt". He received Lot #20 in the Norwalk division of land

This content is clearly not compatibly licensed. It is standard practice on Wikipedia to block editors who repeatedly violate our copyright policies; you were given an opportunity when the CCI was opened to correct your practices without being blocked, but instead you have evidently continued. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Listen, I am a prolific contributor. I have a LOT of articles to respond to when issues come up -- hundreds. I'm not over here resisting attempts to respond. I am responding consistent with what I am being told. That's just not the type of editor that you block. If the issue here is that I am not responding immediately, all that I have in my power is to ask for your patience. As you can see from the long list of articles which a bot generated, that the vast majority of them are not issues, and of the ones that are, only a little bit of effort is needed. Again. I am a cooperative, and long-standing editor. Please, lets take a step back here and lets look at these with a little more patience. Greg Bard (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You were first warned of our copyright policies, it seems, in 2006 ([[12]]). Your talk page thereafter has had numerous copyright warnings, from both bots and humans. You have been warned more than once that persistent violators will be blocked. And yet you are still copy-pasting content to Wikipedia. Violating our core legal policy and our site's Terms of Use is not cooperation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: As a non-admin making a drive-by comment about this situation, and as a bit of a notorious softie for keepimg editors, I wonder if it might be possible to arrange some sort of mandated external review on the editor, similar to what was instituted in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case, where Greg could might be banned from editing some (or all) article space pages, but still propose changes on article talk pages, indicating the pages he wants material added from or some other non-copyright-problematic way? For all I know, as someone having not examined the case, that might not be particularly useful, I don't know, but it might be an option worth considering. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I hear you (moonriddengirl), and I still believe you are over reacting with a block. The vast vast majority of my contributions are not an issue, and again, they are voluminous. So, let's do a cost-benefit analysis here too. I also, believe that I should remind you that facts can't be copyrighted. It is the phraseology that is the issue, and almost universally, that has been accounted. In the case of Mr Sention, here, that language is not originally from the "Find a Grave" website, but rather the ancient records. There is no fair way for me to respond to sensitivity levels once we have accounted for phraseology. One is always able to ramp up the sensitivity level if one wishes to. I am asking you to ramp it down, and ask yourself if there really is any issue here in the very few cases. In the cases where there is an issue, lets do the -- usually very minor fixes-- that are needed. Would you like me to revisit Sension? I will. However, when a bot produces a list with hundreds of irrelevant instances, it is not reasonable to expect me to take it very seriously. Bring the few to my attention in a well considered way, as you have done with Sension, and I promise I will respond appropriately. Greg Bard (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we also be very clear and on the record here? I was given a notice about the Hernandez Trail, I responded to the notice in a constructive way, and I was blocked. That isn't a moral, or decent justification for a block. Please relent. Greg Bard (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You've received notices before. The constructive way to deal with them is to read the policy and stop copying content. That there is content in Hernandez Trail that must be removed is simply evidence that you have not dealt with this constructively. This pattern of copying content, in whatever proportion, stretches back to 2006. In whatever proportion, it has to stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Greg, I unfortunately would see it the same way as MRG: when you're already under the microscope for copyright, then you need to do everything humanly in your power to not' violate copyright. This one's far too flagrant and obvious. We trust every editor so that we do not have to follow up their edits with a review - even if you're contribs are 90% copyright-free, your 10% are hazardous! the panda ₯’ 22:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem from that bot generated list that it is 10%, but rather much less. In any case, the block is uncalled for as I am not over here being defiant about these issues, but rather cooperative, impatience of others notwithstanding. I've been around way too long, and have contributed way too much for this action. Let's be reasonable, communicating adults here, not bots. Greg Bard (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• User:John Carter, I'm all about salvaging good faith editors, but I don't think I can make that call myself. CCIs are a tremendous pull on community resources, and I have no idea why this problem has persisted. So far, User:Gregbard doesn't show any awareness that the problem here is not that he is being examined or even blocked, but that he has copied content and is still copying content onto Wikipedia. :( I've taken this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block of User:Gregbard for community review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Of the 206 articles that have been checked so far at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130330, 41 contained copyright violations (nearly 20 per cent). Many are impossible to check, as no source was provided at the time the edit was made. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• And there is a very real chance that just one or two serious copyright violations could be enough to initiate a lawsuit which could potentially bankrupt the Wikimedia Foundation and cause wikipedia to be closed down permanently. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, et, al. I believe you have created a very exaggerated image in your minds about this situation. I am aware that there is a claim that there is a risk of a copyright violation. I understand this. However, at this point, I am wondering what an actual copyright lawyer would have to say about it. Is there really any real liability here on the part of Wikimedia, or is this overly timid policy enforcement? I don't think it is a great knowledge of copyright law that is motivating the activity here, but rather fear and ignorance of it. I was on the board of a radio station, and also on the board of directors of a television station. It seems to me that it is possible that I have a better idea of what is an actual risk than you do! This isn't to say that I resist improvements. Nor, does this mean that I don't or won't respect additional safeguards instituted by Wikimedia that are really not legally necessary. However, up to this point I have had to trust my own common sense, and not be crippled by the unjustified fears of others. In the case of Sension, the original text is quite ancient, and was copied by a contributor to Find a Grave (who apparently are not worried about copyright issues), and as such, there really isn't any risk of a copyright infringement. I would like for you to consider the possibility that I had also considered this in the course of my contributions. With all of that said, it is apparent that my common sense judgment of what is and is not within the limits of liability is beyond the comfort level of some editors, and I recognize that. I will be more careful in the future. Is there any other statement you would require of me before you lift this block? Greg Bard (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It sounds to me, then, as though what you are saying is that you have ignored copyright policy and our Terms of Use for years, after repeated notices and in spite of the community resources your prior violations of policy have occasioned, because you disagree with them. This is not something that makes me feel inclined to lift your block. These policies are not optional and never have been, and it doesn't depend upon your assessment of risk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you aren't really listening to me, and have a disposition going on. I am very sorry, as it seems that you are very upset. I appreciate the role you have taken on in dealing with copyright issues. We all take responsibility for our part. In my case, it's local history and politics.

In direct response to you last comment, No. No, I have not ignored copyright policy, but rather I have considered it, and weighed the issue using a standard that differs from your own. That's different than ignoring. One way that people can be respectful of each other is recognizing that people think differently about things, and that does not make them bad people. That is what I am doing in your case, and I have stated that I will respond to that fact. You really seem to be harping on the fact that there have been repeated warnings, and for my part, I must say that A) a bot generated list with hundreds of irrelevant entries does not instill confidence that it is any valid measure of what is and is not a violation, and B) the cases where an issue was brought to me thoughtfully were responded to respectfully and individually. I do not seem to be able to respond at ANI, so I don't know what I can do at this point. If you have made up your mind that I am some great hazard, and nothing I can say will change your mind, then, well, shame on you. I have said I will do better in the future, and if that isn't good enough, then you are one of the bad guys and since you have the power to do so, the bad guys win. This really is enough already. Message received and understood. I will proceed on a paranoid, and fearful basis on the issue of copyright violations rather than rely on my own common sense. What else would you like to hear from me? I feel like I'm being bullied at this point. Greg Bard (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

To be honest in my mind you can obviously have a different opinion on how the copyright policy should be enforced or whether the policy is correct. What you can not do, however, is refuse to follow it after you've been warned (repeatedly) how WE enforce it on the English Wikipedia. We as a community are, indeed, relatively careful about copyright and lean towards being cautious because we want to make reuse by other users as easy (and legal) as possible. This is why the Fair Use rules for images are so strong as well. We as a not for profit encyclopedia could use an incredibly broad definition of fair use under US law because of the obvious educational nature of the project, however, we are also aiming to allow all of our content (or as much as possible) to be reusable by anyone in the world (commercial or not) and so we must be significantly more careful and make it as obvious as possible when there are exceptions. To be honest, I'm not sure you understand the severity at all, and given the (by hand) look at the bot generated list of articles it is indeed severe.

Regarding your question about commenting on ANI, if you would like I would be happy to either set up a section on this page (where you can comment) which would be automatically transcluded on ANI or to copy over a statement from you. James of UR (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that any attempt to defend myself, or present any mitigating points are only being interpreted as insolence. That isn't a judicious environment for considering punitive action. We all have differing interpretations of things. If we can't respect that, and consider that a person is innocent and cooperating than we have a more shameful problem. I stated that I used my own common sense, and that appears to be very offensive to you. I have stated that I will be more careful in the future and the apparent need for further contrition on my part is getting into bullying. I will overtly state again, that I Greg Bard, will respect the copyright policy. If you need more than that form a long standing editor, in a civil community, than that is a shame. Greg Bard (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering the amount of work that you have created for contributors because of your decision not to follow our mandatory copyright policy, I believe that this is a good example of a time when the clause in Wikipedia:Copyright violations would best apply:

Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue. In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used. (emphasis added)

I would be far more inclined to support an unblock if you would not only follow User:Fluffernutter's note above in your unblock request but also agree to limit your contributions to annotating your WP:CCI - old and current - to indicate which articles were copied from where until the review is complete. This is the only way I can see to mitigate the additional damage you've done since your CCI started. Whether that's 10% or 20% or whatever, it would help diminish the burden you've created by your choices. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And I think it would be not only helpful to do as Moonriddengirl says above, but also to amend your bolded statement to something like "I, Greg Bard, agree to conduct myself in accord with the strict interpretation of the existing copyright policy. Should I have any questions regarding the strict interpretation of wikipedia policy, I will ask for assistance from an editor knowledgable in that area." This would of course allow you to propose changes to the existing policy, but it would also if followed give other editors better cause to belief a possibly variant interpretation of policy may not create continuing problems for the project. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Brevard County Library System

Much of this edit, which is sourced to a dead link, appears to have been copied from this source. Per Wayback, it predates the edit.

Some of the material was simply copied from this site. I have cleaned what I could.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Theories of religion

Dear Greg Bard, I added a question for you in the discussion about the category Theories of religion on May 2. I'll be glad to read your answer. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal moralism

The article legal moralism was deleted today, as the content was a copyright violation from here. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Fifth Pillar

'Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles, and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.59.109 (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

CCI case

Hi Greg—

Your block and CCI case has come up off wiki at Wikipediocracy. Feel free to hop over there if you need an unfettered forum to discuss the specifics of your situation (Thread = "Neutral editors who have left the project"). Alternatively, don't hesitate to email me directly (do not sock and use User Talk!!!): ShoeHutch@gmail.com. Hang in there, these situations are difficult. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Strategic surrender

The article Strategic surrender was deleted today, as the content was copied from Strategic Surrender: The Politics of Victory and Defeat By Paul Kecskemeti (page 8) and Prisoner's Dilemma By William Poundstone (page 89). -- Diannaa (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Infobox philosopher maintenance

Category:Infobox philosopher maintenance, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:POV logic

Template:POV logic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)