User talk:Gregbard/Archive 2

AfD nomination of Garbage heap of history

An article that you have been involved in editing, Garbage heap of history, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This page is satirical, not factual, as evidenced by the caption to the picture of the garbage heap. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? before 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Evolution

I see you were the last person to edit Category:Evolution. If you have a moment, would you mind commenting at Category talk:Integral economics where an editor is suggesting that Category:Integral economics be added to Category:Evolution. A similar discussion is at Talk:Social Evolution regarding whether the article Social Evolution should be in the same category. I suspect someone with more category experience would be helpful. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Formal semantics

Hi. Admin User talk:Accounting4Taste tells me that you requested the move of the article at Semantics of logic to Formal semantics (see my request at User talk:Accounting4Taste#A long time ago, ...). I've posted my reasons for reversing the move at Talk:Formal semantics#Move; I guess that maybe you want to argue against my case there. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility, assertions, belief

Giving metaphorical, big "F" grades to one's fellow editors for comments they have made is, at the very least, unnecessarily abrasive, and at worst a form of ad hominem. It's akin to responding to someone by saying "what you just said is really, really stupid, I mean really stupid," which isn't too far off from calling the person themselves stupid. Far better to merely say "This statement is wrong, and here's why..." Anyway, thanks for softening/clarifying your evaluation of my comment somewhat.

That aside, I think you misunderstand what I said. Neither of your responses after my comment show that an assertion is the same as a belief, but go off in another direction. Do you sincerely deny that one can assert something that one does not believe? Such denial should be fairly easy to dismiss with examples (I provided one in my original comment). I'll give another one:

China does not exist.

Now, though I've just made this assertion, I happen to know that my belief on the matter is quite different from it. I actually believe that China does exist, and I now retract that assertion. Nevertheless, I made the assertion, even though I did not believe it. Nick Graves (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it appeared abrasive. In logic you pretty much only get either a "T" or and "F" so that's harsh.

I do agree with your distinction between belief and assertion. Belief is a more fundamental way to describe it. However, I would go farther to say that if well describe atheism as a "theory" we can do away with the issue of believers and asserters altogether. This is the furthest abstraction you can make about atheism. This is consistent with the proposal I'm working on.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh, I've been treating an assertion made in good faith by agent A as the same thing as a belief of A, is that incorrect? (Assertions not made in good faith are of course some form of misrepresentation.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your remark Pontiff Greg Bard. As you can see, Srleffler made me a similar remark too (you can check my response here). And you both are right. The problem I'm finding is that, for giving a precise and accurate treatment to categories (not the case for giving categories an approximate broad use) I'm missing the existence of a detailed specification. However, I'll try to be more rigorous. Bests. --Faustnh (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

American philosophy

I have just completed (to my temporary satisfaction) the article American philosophy, which you earlier this summer added some cats and rated it as start class. I have re-rated it as "B-class" (which might be too high, should it be C?). I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and tell me your thoughts about it, such as overall organization, as well as if you think there are any glaring gaps. Thank you. JEN9841 (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To add some things I forgot, yes, looking back on it I realize I should have worked on it under my namespace and then transferred it, but it got to a point where it was too late. Some sections of the article certainly have missing material, especially the "Modern times" section. This is where I'd like some help. JEN9841 (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:In

Template:In has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal language (logic)

I am strongly considering nominating the new article for deletion (and thus for merging back into the original article), unless there is some strong argument why it is not a POV fork. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl, substantial content has been repeatedly removed from the "computing"article. I have attempted to work with the group in creating a comprehensive article, but the group insists on deleting unfamiliar content.

It is not acceptable to continue to remove this content without placing it somewhere appropriate. You and others may take the position that you "just don't see the ... importance, ... the relevance", etcetera. So you have to make a choice... either "work and play" well together or split up. This material is important because it is the basis for so many other concepts.

Leave the g-d article alone or be prepared to ensure that for every statement of truth removed and deleted form formal language (logic), that an equivalent one will be placed into the article on formal language. I don't think you or anyone else is prepared to do that. Perhaps some day it will be possible to merge the two, however in the meantime it is only right, fair, just and appropriate to allow the topic to develop unhindered. Be well, Carl. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for the content fork, either. (And, as you know, "truth" has nothing to do with Wikipedia; even if the questionable statements and interpretations you've been adding across Wikipedia are true, they should still be excised unless they are taken from credible, reliable sources.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Originally I thought there would be no reason for a fork either! However, the material kept getting repeatedly deleted. So therefore, YES a new page is necessary (because of you guys!!!!) Don't write on my talk page a state that "truth has nothing to do with wp." That is bad faith statement. If you know its true, then leave it the F alone! You constantly abuse the WP rules. Hunter's Metalogic is a reliable source. So don't come on here or anywhere else appealing to your personal standard of reliable sources. Seriously what nerve. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Metalogic is a fringe source for mathematical articles; it may be reliable for philosphical articles. Still, if the material you're adding to "formal language" is the set of theorems and the deduction schema, it shouldn't be under that name. Perhaps it should be in theory (logic)? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as we both agree it's reliable. I think your proposal, while an attempt at being constructive (which I appreciate), is none-the-less pretty ridiculous. That content is about FORMAL LANGUAGES. All of it. Period. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What garbage! Just what do you propose to do with all that wonderful content?! You guys are like monsters. If you don't care about it, just delete it. Seriously, what nerve. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Auto edits

Please stop changing links to formal language to formal language (logic) in articles where this is clearly inappropriate, e.g. as you did here. Your rights to use WP:AWB may be revoked if you continue making that kind of undiscerning automated edits. Thank you, Pcap ping 00:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You have made a fairly large number of inappropriate edits like that! If you don't start reverting yourself immediately I will report you to WP:ANI. Pcap ping 00:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you want to play that game, I've reported you to ANI. Pcap ping 00:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't play games. P. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formal language (logic)

I have removed comments you inserted in the middle of my nomination. Please give any comments you wish in the unlimited space below the horizontal line. My nomination is a single text that I wrote, which should not be edited or split by others. There is no lack of room to reply to me in depth lower down. I would move your comments there, but I want to give you the chance to format them as you please. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay Carl, I appreciate the notice. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why, exactly, did you add an RFC tag to the AFD? There is really no need to, since AFDs have pretty high exposure as it is. @harej 04:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that there is a need because of the small population of philosophers regularly editing WP as compared to the swarm of mathematicians. It is not fair or appropriate, and WP works by consensus. Therefore, as much as I can do to get the appropriate people to consider this particular issue will barely be enough. The mathematicians seem to believe that covering the philosophical and logical foundations in mathematics articles is POV (which it is not). There is an uphill climb to any real interdisciplinary coverage of material. Instead, it is deleted as irrelevant, unimportant, etcetera. However, these philosophers have taken the time and effort of elucidate on certain aspects of things. I would prefer if their efforts weren't totally thrown in the garbage. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate response would be to report, neutrally, the deletion to WIkiProject Philosophy, as it was done to WikiProject Mathematics. An RfC on an AfD is almost certainly inappropriate. I can imagine cases where it would be appropriate, but that clearly is not a valid reason for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Syntactic conseqence and semantic consequence

Hmmm. I can see your point. However, what you call "syntactic consequence" seems to be what most people call "formal consequence", or (after changing parts of speech "proved from" or "derived from", while "semantic conseqnece" seems to be what concept which doesn't usually have a clear name. Please accept my apology here, as the dispute runs over multiple articles. (Even so, the matheatical glossary you refer to qualifies as an WP:SPS, so is not reliable; and your google books sources are improper as references; you should refer to the actual book and page number(s).) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice note Arthur. As always, I am open minded to making sure to include any alternative nomenclature (and any clarifications that go along with). The references were entirely for your own benefit, so do what you will about them. Stay cool. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

plane (esotericism)

I am curious why you moved plane (esotericism) to where it is rather than metaphysics. I know metaphysics traditionally came to mean one of Aristotle's books after the physics one, but I thought the discipline and even book has to do with what is. Many philosophies have had the ideas that 'planes' exist. I think I proposed a 'plane (esoterism)' that would be deeper or more comparative with modern occultism references, so maybe you wanted to prevent that. I am not sure I would have ever got around to it. I do not really mind what the article is called but IMO 'metaphysics' would be more etymologically relevant. 'Esoterism' has to do with what is hidden, not necessarily what exists or not, and the article was already about what various people thought exists. An esoteric article might have to use references to show there is some idea behind most of those ideas, and I am not sure the article does so yet. I was saying 'esoterism' rather than 'esotericism' because the latter is sort of repetitive. You could say 'esotericic' and 'esotericism' would still be related to that, but 'esoterism' is only related to 'esoteric' unless I am making some mistake. If there ever are two articles I think they would both have to be referenced. As it is it could have added certain already written comparisons that would tie together at least 90% of the article. I am not sure I have the time to do that. I guess you are taking an Aristotelean viewpoint that unless something is empirical it might not exist. I accept his symbolic logic but also the logic that if something can be proved to exist in context it may be worthwhile in Philosophy. Good luck editing.--Dchmelik (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to have a very rigorous Philosophy department consisting only in academically appropriate content. Esoterism, planes, divinity, occultism, etcetera is considered pseudophilosophy by academic philosophers. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

... by some of them, and I wonder how academic some of them really are: examine what was taught in The Academy from Plato's dialogues and similar texts. Of course your idea reflects modern philosophy and the viewpoints of the masses, which is what Wikipedia is geared to, so your idea is reasonable.--Dchmelik (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

I am currently in a disagreement over an edit at Ayn Rand with User:Skomorokh. I posted this on the talk page for Ayn Rand, and I was wondering what your thoughts on the situation were.

Recently, I added a "See also" section that linked to the articles American philosophy and List of American philosophers. This edit was quickly reverted by User:Skomorokh. He stated that See also sections "are for articles of crucial relevance to the topic at hand that for whatever reason have not been linked to in the body of the article. There are hundreds of pages as relevant as American philosophy that could be added to these articles, and none of them would be appropriate". I object to this for several reasons:

(1) Ayn Rand was an important philosopher of the 20th century in the United States. The best line of argument against this is that she is not "American enough", which I am not sure would stand up. Her relevance and influence in American philosophy, and the amount of time she spent in the United States I think safely lands her in this category.

(2) Ayn Rand is on the list of American philosophers and there is also a paragraph devoted to her and Objectivist philosophy in the article American philosophy. Her importance to these topics is very manifest, and, since they were not linked elsewhere in the article (that I could find), I found it appropriate to link them in the See also section. What do other people think? JEN9841 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion going on at WP:ANI#Editing another User's page with which you are an involved party. Singularity42 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved the page to User:Gregbard/Sandbox. If you do not wish to have it there, you are always free to move it to any other reasonable name or request its deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting tools

Hello,

On your userpage you have a section called "Redirects that I remember setting up". If you go here [1] you can see all the redirects you created. Also, according to this tool [2] 38 people are watching your userpage. You seem to be quite popular. ;) I thought you might have liked to know if you didn't already. Pollinosisss (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PROD removal

I see that you've removed the PROD tag from the Tarja Kallio-Tamminen article. As you didn't mention on the talk page or the edit summary as to why, I'm curious as to why it was removed. I can't see how the individual meets the notability criteria for WP:ACADEMIC as the article currently stands, and I'm hoping you may have additional insight. Is there an online source you can point me to? I'd be happy to add any reliably sourced info to the article myself in order to help bolster the claim of notability. Prior to adding the PROD template I did a search but was unable to find anything substantial, although it could very well be due to translation issues. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No comment? I'd like to be able to add some references to the article or I may take it to AfD.--Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. I was mostly trying to give a chance to a female philosopher of which there are few articles (which should be considered in any non-notability claims). Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Greg. I added a bit of referenced content to hopefully help the article stick, but I'm not sure if there's enough there to survive AfD if someone nominates it. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Logic

Hi, no content was deleted - not even history. I think you're looking for the Index of logic articles, which was the target of several redirects. Verbal chat 19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be so confrontational. I have not asked for any content to be deleted, and as far as I'm aware no one else has. My goal is to improve the project, and I don't think the outline project, as distinct from any articles, is doing that. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy call - you've been named in a discussion

You have been named in the discussion at User talk:Jake Wartenberg#Outline of water.

The Transhumanist 22:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please activate email

I'd like to talk to you about web navigation systems in general, and the state-of-the-art of outline-related technology.

Please drop me an email.

The Transhumanist 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Great chain of being

I noticed that you reduced the importance of the article. I can't help but disagree. The idea of reality being hierarchical has been central from the ancient world all the way down to the end of the eighteenth century. The current article may only be dealing with the medieval conception of the great chain but much much more could be said. Pollinosisss (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, then change it. However, in general I do not consider religious speculation to be of importance to philosophy at all. (I've been meaning to congratulate and thank you for your contributions.... ) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll modify the importance as I feel somewhat strongly about it, thanks for understanding. Thank you very much for the congratulations and for the Star nomination as well. I definitely appreciate it. Pollinosisss (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You deserve it.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't understand something intellectually, you don't understand it at all

I am not sure of the validity of this. This is easily said.

Instinctive thought. A goalie in soccer saving a ball before he "knows" it is coming. In some form he has to know it is coming, therefore he knows before he intellectually knows! Does he understand the ball is coming? In some sense he does.

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not the appropriate sense of "intellectually" that I mean! Just having something/anything of an idea floating around in the brain doesn't consist in an intellectual understanding! Does the goalie have some sense of the most important consequences of allowing the goal be scored? Perhaps the life or death of some person who bet his life on it? Perhaps the league is considering dropping the team... leading to increased crime in the neighborhood.... Perhaps the particular goal is the 1000th one to be scored in that particular stadium. Does he realize that it is being philosophized about as we type... etcetera?

Anyway, it is a quote that gets a lot of attention. The truth is that we never have a fully intellectual understanding of things, we can only try for as full an account as possible. Perhaps you can commiserate with User:Tparameter who also questioned it. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We only use 30% of our brain for active thought. The other is churning away, and without it we could not live.

Being a goalie in the past myself, the ball coming at you at speed is not an idea floating around, it could hit you! The sub-conscious thoughts are what we use continually and cannot be ignored as non-intellectual. Every good coach of a team will have such for the goalie and a course of Vitamin B for his nerves, the rotary nerves.

He will learn that the penalty-taker will, at some time, look to the direction that he intends kicking the ball to.

The penalty-taker will try to disguise this.

Every successful team will be coached with the best philosorher/psycologist, in the back-ground of course.

Yes, he knows he is philosophizied about.

I think when we all get our hands on "the Red Book" of Jung we will know for certain, maybe. Good Thought!

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Propositional calculus

Take the Heine–Borel theorem for a subset S of Euclidean space Rⁿ. I'm guessing you'd call that a "formula of some formal language", but the statement does not meet the definition of a formula present at Formula. Consequently, I don't think formula is the right word, unless of course I am misinterpreting the (Propositional calculus) sentence all together, in which case it might need some work to improve clarity. Conjecture seemed reasonable by "In mathematics, a conjecture is an unproven proposition or theorem which appears correct", but the trouble is that as soon as it has been proven it really isn't a conjecture any longer. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Heine-Borel theorem is not a "formula of some formal language". There isn't even one canonical way to formalise it as a formula (a string of symbols) in any given context. What you seem to be missing is that propositional calculus is precisely about these formalisations, i.e. the purely "algebraic" operations with strings of symbols. You have rules that allow you to create new strings ("theorems") from a given set of strings ("axioms"). Perhaps the wikilink for theorem has misled you; in fact it would be misleading and incorrect if that article didn't say in its lead: "In formal mathematical logic, the concept of a theorem may be taken to mean a formula that can be derived according to the derivation rules of a fixed formal system." Thus in one sense (the sense used in propositional calculus), a "theorem" is also just a string in a formal language.

That's one reason why your edit was problematic: The term "conjecture" is not normally used in this parallel sense, i.e. for certain formulas. But even if it were, the key point in the definition of "conjecture" is "which appears correct". That's the single most important part in the definition of "conjecture", and here it's completely irrelevant and misleading. We want to be able to say that the formula $\exists x(x\not =x)$ ("there is an element that is not equal to itself") does not follow from some set of axioms. But we wouldn't be able to say this if we only considered conjectures, because there is no doubt it does not appear correct.

By the way, generally it's better to do discussions about the content of an article on the article talk page, for easier reference in the future by other editors who might run into the same problems or want to understand an old edit. Hans Adler 09:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mathematosis

The article Mathematosis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Importance or frequency of use of neologism is not established by article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drdisque (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mathematosis

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mathematosis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematosis. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mathematosis

Template:Mathematosis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ray^Talk 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Kind note about ANI

Hi, Gregbard! This is a kind note to gently remind you that when you open an WP:ANI thread about another editor you need to inform them of it. No worries! I've gone ahead and let them know. This is just a gentle FYI. Basket of Puppies 04:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will be mindful of that fno.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mathematosis in policies

You know that your article Mathematosis was deleted at Afd and your template referencing your essay WP:Mathematosis is pretty close to being deleted too as WP:POINT. Please do not put references to it into policies. I view doing that as vandalism and have marked one of them as so. Do it again and I will be reporting you to WP:ANI which I believe you are already familiar with. Dmcq (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a good faith editor. Stop accusing me of vandalism. You are only demonstrating your own bad attitude. Do not threaten me. I have every right to communicate a minority position in an essay. The tag on it confirms as much. Please consider the possibility that there actually is a legitimate issue at hand here. I authored some perfectly fine content at theorem, and the group has shoved it aside as irrelevant. This was only after having the material completely deleted. Now it is apparently just fine over at formal theorem where it was not meant to be. Furthermore, all the drama about how it means that I JUST DON'T KNOW ANYTHING about logic is a juvenile level of demandingness, not appropriate for people on a publicly edited encyclopedia attempting to engage in civil discourse about the content. I have repeatedly attempted to communicate civilly with the group of mathematicians, and they are wrapped up in the mental disquiet they experience about how they think things should be. I have to claim to be the mature adult in the room at this point and offer another chance to join me in that role. There is an appropriate way to accommodate this kind of material. We all just need to grow up about it in the talk pages. That means recognizing the problem. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Mathematosis

Wikipedia:Mathematosis, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mathematosis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Mathematosis during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot

I think that we may now be getting too many results from the AlexNewArtBot. I'm not sure your philosopher name rules expansion was necessary. The bot searches for the string "philosoph". Wouldn't this in itself catch most new philosophy articles? - Pollinosisss (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at it. I reverted it for nowPontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Common conception

The article Common conception has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Mere definition of a transparent juxtaposition of two English words. No possibility of expansion into an encyclopedic article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deor (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gregbard. You have new messages at Deor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Articles for deletion nomination of Common conception

I have nominated Common conception, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common conception. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You should try to improve that article if you want it to be kept. Pcap ping 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB

When using AWB, please look at the edits before accepting the changes. In edits like this, this, and this, you changed titles that should not have been changed. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I am being mindful to avoid titles and quotes, but I missed those two. I'll review those. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I see you have a lot of articles which have been put up for deletion. I am really sorry to see that. Our wikiproject helps rescue worthy articles.

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, Gregbard. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks in section titles

You added a wikilink to a section title here. Please be more careful and keep up the good work. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Offer

No news to you that there is discomfort among mathematical logicians at some of your edits. I wonder, though, if you might accept my good offices in getting a better understanding. I am the originator of at least a couple of articles, topical logic and Ramism, that have come up on your radar. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I invite your correspondence. Please correct me on anything. Most recently I was working on wikilinking important logic articles like logical form and truth value. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Metaphysics Template

75.154.186.99 has been making a number of very poor and very drastic edits to the philosophy template. I see now that he has started doing the same to the metaphysics template. You seem to be the main force behind that template, so I just thought I'd give you a heads up. - Atfyfe (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Request Re: Expanding Page

Hello, would you be interested in helping to expand the page on Ian O'Doherty? It would be very helpful. Please let me know. Thanks

User:PublicGasur —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Confirmed-

Template:Confirmed- has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Metaphysics

Somebody delete philosophers from this article. Can you fix it?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Gregbard! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Lennart Åqvist - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Taste (aesthetics)

Hello Gregbard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Taste (aesthetics), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Please build consensus for move first. Thank you. GedUK  11:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Invite

I don't usually join the task forces, but thank you for the invite. Since there are several hostile editors, if you like the general tenor of the material I discussed on the talk page of Godel's incompleteness theorems, it would be good if you could say so on that page.

At the moment, there is an attempt to use disciplinary measures as a form of heavy handed censorship of material. This should be resisted, since it conflicts with the core mission of Wikipedia. The proofs that I gave of Godel's theorem and related results are pretty standard, differing only in that I used a jargon free presentation. I think this annoys people who like the standard jargon.Likebox (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Model Theory

Here are a few resources (both printed texts you should be able to get at a university library and online PDFs of lecture notes, and possibly some published papers) that you might find helpful if you're putting together an article on 'model' in the mathematical or mathematical logical sense. You may already be aware of some of these, but they sprang to mind:

• Rahim N. Moosa (lecture notes) : http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~rmoosa/modeltheory-notes.pdf

• David Marker: Model Theory: An Introduction (Springer, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 217, August 21, 2002)

• David Marker's homepage: http://www.math.uic.edu/~marker/ also has some links to papers and notes but they may be too high-level for this kind of article

• Wilfrid Hodges:A Shorter Model Theory Cambridge University Press (April 28, 1997)

This is an abdigement of his longer "Model Theory"

• Hodges has also written two very good expository articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
  • http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/
  • http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modeltheory-fo/

I'm not sure how one would cite the online references to satisfy WP:V but they might be useful in organizing the presentation if nothing else.

Hope that helps. Thanks. 71.139.15.158 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

I write because you participated in editing Teachable moment. In the months since I created this article, the topic has taken on an unanticipated personal relevance. I wonder if you might consider joining other co-mentors in a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please consider your edit of a Korean neo-Confucian term, Gyorin -- here as a context. In a small article written largely by me, you may be able to develop a plausible hypothesis about the kind of contributor I have been? I see that you have made similar edits to articles I wrote about Japanese neo-Confucian scholar/bureaucrats, Hayashi Hōkō and Hayashi Ryūkō.

Perhaps this brief investigation will help you appreciate why I might have chosen to reach out to you? --Tenmei (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gregbard -- Aspects of your userpage inform my persisting interest in asking for your help. You posted:

• 1. "If you don't understand something intellectually, you don't understand it at all."
• 2. "I would like to ensure that we get complete articles, with a consistent format, straight story, inclusive and consistent terminology. I would like to make sure ... that the foundational ideas are covered."

A third motivating factor is more difficult for me to understand and explain. You wrote:

• 3. "Currently I am working on Concepts and theories."

I have used conventional historiography and military taxonomy as arguably complementary tools/filters for ensuring perspective in Category:Japanese eras and Category:Japanese emperors; but my knee-jerk reaction to the title "Concepts and theories" was to recognize that this kind of organizing filter is inadequately emphasized in my edits to articles like Hōreki (1751-1764) or Ansei (1854-1860) or Emperor Yōzei (869-949) or Emperor Kōkaku (1779-1817)? At the same moment, I found myself speculating about whether to revisit what is published about the attraction Ezra Pound found in Nihon Ōdai Ichiran?

In sum, your userpage provided an unanticipated "spark" of inspiration. --Tenmei (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil banner

Hi. I'm intrigued by the banner you've created at Lists of philosophy topics, but there are far too many selfreferences in it. Any chance you could edit those out, so that it just points to articlespace (and maybe 1 portalspace) target(s)? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like that policy too much, but I have removed them I see it as inevitable.Greg Bard (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rationalization (fallacy)

i feel uneasy about your renaming of Rationalization (psychology) to Rationalization (fallacy). You are choosing to put mere emphasis on the fact that rationalization is a fallacy rather than it being an important psychological defense mechanism - yet it appears nowhere on the fallacy template Template:Informal Fallacy on the page. In fact the common everyday expression used for rationalization is "making excuses" not "rationalization" anyway so maybe the fallacy name should be "making excuses". I also cant see Rationalization listed in the fallacy articles.--Penbat (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That rationalization is a logical fallacy is the fundamental understanding. There may be several theories on its nature including psychological theories. To say that rationalization is primarily a psychological phenomenon is a bit of a presumption. I wouldn't say it's POV exactly, however, to avoid that type of issue, it is best to house it within the most general field of study of the topic --logic. That there are psychological aspects of the topic should be in the article, however it is primarily a critical thinking topic.Greg Bard (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rationalisation is one of the most important psychological defense mechanisms and has a pedigree going all the way back 100 years to Freud - it is a fundamental cornerstone of psychology. You must be kidding to suggest that the study of rationalisation as a fallacy is more important and fundamental than that. And when exactly was the first identification of rationalisation as a fallacy and by whom ? I still cant see it mentioned in any Wiki fallacy articles. In google "rationalization fallacy" gives 372 hits and "rationalization defense mechanism" gives 8,710 hits. Also in google "fallacy rationalization" gives 118 hits and "defense mechanism rationalization" gives 5,650 hits.--Penbat (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the popularity of webhits etcetera, only academic disciplines and subject matter, etc. However, in principle, a "rationalization" is always a fallacy and only sometimes a social phenomenon such as a "defense mechanism". You are correct about the content, in that I think it needs more development in its capacity as a fallacy... and so do the fallacy articles. I'm not kidding when I claim that it is more "fundamentally" a fallacy. It should be no surprise too, because philosophy and logic are like that. The idea is to identify the fundamentals. When you are talking about a defense mechanism, that brings along with it a lot of assumptions (two people in conflict, psychological theory, etcetera). Whe you say a rationalization is a fallacy, that's strictly ontological categorization. That is as fundamental as it gets. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continues here.Talk:Rationalization (fallacy) --Penbat (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God

The article Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There seems to be no evidence for notability for this

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NBeale (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism

I have questioned the neutrality of this article - which appears to be pure Catholic propaganda with no objective content. I would welcome it if relevant projects could have a look at it. --Tediouspedant (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Per WP:SIG, it is required that your signature either have a link to your user page or user talk page. Please fix it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of any problem, and furthermore I am shocked and amazed to learn that the preferences allow for this to happen at all.Greg Bard 21:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fix ...now. Greg Bard 21:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How mentorship will work?

Gregbard -- I wonder if the perspective of a philosopher might help mitigate some of the inevitable lessons learned the hard way through trial and error? Does something spring to mind which is obvious to you but not to us? If not, good.

Roger Davies seeks more information from the mentors about how mentoring will work.

I hope these words will help "prime" the pump. I believe that what can be done in pre-planning has been accomplished. We will be figuring it out together as the future unfolds. A restatement is straightforward:

• An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of Leujohn in Hong Kong.
• Fasten in Germany suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an experiment derived from salutary premises which I posted at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unanticipated Consequences, especially the words of a famous German:

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; however, a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change. This is useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.

The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In resolving these seeming contradictions, the mentors' points-of-view are essential. Together we will discover otherwise unrecognized alternatives.

In the context of this specific issue, Xavexgoem has agreed to be a non-public mentor. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty encompassed User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly. Xavexgoem's experience in mediation will help remedy an arguable deficit in the composition of our small group. Core policies are the tools at hand; and Xavexgoem agreed to help connect the dots in hopes that it could benefit more than me.

Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work?

Does this suggest comments you might want to share? Observations? Questions? --Tenmei (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. ArbCom wants comments from prospective mentors. --Tenmei (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Naive Realism article

Hi, as the most active member of the Epistemology taskforce I was wondering if you could take a look at Naïve realism, which is in a bit of a mess at the moment - 90% of the article is copyrighted material (and improperly attributed). This could perhaps be solved by simply redirecting to Direct Realism, but some users have suggested on that page's talkpage that the two theories are sufficiently different to merit separate articles. Hadrian89 (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Φ-ERTF etc

Please don't list templates for deletion while they are still in use.©Geni 01:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of philosophy project templates

Hi Greg. Usually when you move a page you leave a redirect behind—especially when the page has existed for a long time and doubly so when there are still internal links to the templates on Wikipedia, which was the case with many of the templates you marked for deletion. A second thing is that whenever you mark a template for deletion, always include the db-notice in noinclude tags, viz, <noinclude>{{db|because}}</noinclude>. When you don't do that, every page that transcludes the templates also appears in CAT:CSD as a pages tagged for deletion, which happened here—most of the philosophy wikiproject was marked for deletion! I redirected all the templates, so the pages still containing the older templates are displaying the moved content. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy tagging of templates

Hi, Gregbard. I've noticed that you keep tagging redirects for templates that you've moved, using reasons that are not valid speedy deletion criteria. I went ahead and deleted the redirects that were only ever used in WikiProject pages as "maintenance", but I have to draw the line at templates that have been used in articles. Even though you have orphaned the redirects, they simply doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. You need to nominate these at Redirects for Discussion. Please let me know if you need any assistance with making the nominations. --RL0919 (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated it. I appreciate your friendly note. Be well, Greg Bard 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Philosophy resources"

I removed a template from Satisfiability. I have no objection to linking to actual articles on any of those websites, but linking to searches seems bad to me. I looked it up at WP:ELNO and they list "Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." as an example of a link to avoid. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it. The two instances of it so far are experimental. Thanks for the input. Greg Bard 03:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Noesis (online journal)

Hi, as far as I can see from the Noesis website, this is a search engine, not an online journal. Under "submit" one can submit links for inclusion, not manuscripts. I am baffled, though, about why they have an editorial board, as that suggests it is a journal. Can you perhaps clarify this? --Crusio (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sierra Nevada Brewing Company

It was about changing the template to conform with the WikiProject Beer guidelines, and the wider Wikipedia consensus not to have too many different infobox templates. If you have any other questions please don't hesitate to ask. SilkTork *^YES! 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with that if there is a "beer consensus." However it didn't look like an improvement at all. Be well,Greg Bard 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Nonfiction

Thank you for the notice. Maurreen (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well-formed formula

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Well-formed formula. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Formulation (logic)

I have nominated Formulation (logic), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formulation (logic). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Paradoctor (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the future of the Marxist taskforce

There is a discussion going on at the talk page to WikiProject Philosophy on merging the Marxist taskforce into the Socialist project. Seeing that you are a member, are you against such a merger, if so why? --TIAYN (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I am in favor. I will probably be the one using AWB to switch project banners(?) I just need to be sure everyone would be okay with it, and how. I am thinking that Marxism just merges into WikiProject Socialism.Greg Bard 16:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the ongoing noticeboard thread on WFF.

Look, you really ought to take your grievance to the appropriate place, and the Philosophy noticeboard is not it.

For the record, I have a PhD in Logic granted by a philosophy department, and I agree with Rubin, et al., on your contribution to Well-formed formula. You wrote that a well-formed formula is "an idea, abstraction or concept which is expressed using the symbols and formation rules (also called the formal grammar) of a particular formal language." One may well call this claim nonsense without bearing a grudge against philosophy.

In any case, the noticeboard is not intended for the sort of discussion you evidently wish to have. Phiwum (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm always open to discussing actual content matters. However, if a person is a jerk, I don't have to suffer it. Conspicuously identifying jerks (in a civil manner, without calling them jerks) is my right and duty.

The Hunter source, which I chose to purchase for myself for its subject matter is a reliable source. It contains the statement refered to by CBM: "A formula is an abstract thing..." The response from them is to call into question the source as "idiosyncratic" etcetera. So even reliable sources are not good enough when faced with them for this group. If it is your claim that formulas should be classified ontologically with concrete, physical, or empirical entities, then your PhD isn't helping on this issue. I can understand that the whole "well-formed" descriptor probably crosses the line into linguistic entities which can be considered concrete, physical, or empirical. However, logicians are always dealing most primarily with the idea when they reason things out, not the marks on paper. (I wish I could find the quote on that issue, which seemed pretty definitive at the time.) This is an important and notable distinction which should be covered appropriately. If there is no article for "formula" and "formula" is redirected to "well-formed formula" which is widely considered to be synonymous, then the article should cover this aspect. Period.

My goal is to create articles with intellectual depth. That will require covering the metalogical issues. They are quite hostile to this project. Rather than get to the bottom of the issues, they delete and forget about it. It has lead to the removal of some high quality, and valid material.

I appreciate your attention to the issue. I would be interested on your further elucidations on the issue, since you are so decent about it. Be well, Greg Bard 23:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Detlefsen

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Michael Detlefsen, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.templeton.org/humble_approach_initiative/Mathematics_and_Its_Significance/Detlefsen.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites 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.)

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Michael Detlefsen

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Michael Detlefsen, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.templeton.org/humble_approach_initiative/Mathematics_and_Its_Significance/Detlefsen.html, and therefore a copyright violation. 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 allowance license, 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:Michael Detlefsen and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Michael Detlefsen, 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:Michael Detlefsen 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:Michael Detlefsen. 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:Michael Detlefsen 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! VernoWhitney (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Øystein Linnebo

A tag has been placed on Øystein Linnebo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ^{(Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)}_babylarm 00:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ad hoc committee

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ad hoc committee, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.freemylife.com/ad_hoc. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites 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.)

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Ad hoc committee

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Ad hoc committee. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Ad hoc. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Ad hoc - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Strings of symbols

Category:Strings of symbols, which you created, has been nominated for 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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact you haven't proposed a characterization of the category, Category:Sequences and series is not a subcategory, nor does it even appear to be a related category. "Strings" are (generally) finite, while "Sequences" are supposed to be, and are generally, infinite. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction/more

The article List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction/more has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Abandoned, orphaned subpage. Subpages are disallowed in the mainspace, and userfying or otherwise moving seems pointless when it isn't edited anyway, and there already is a main article than can be edited if needed.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Auxiliary Organizations Association

A tag has been placed on Auxiliary Organizations Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Caleb Jon^talk 06:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories

New category is Category:Legal doctrines and principles. Still quite different from Category:Theories of law, which remains intact. --Neutrality^talk 07:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No the move was inconsistent with the on-going effort to make a distinction between concepts, and theories. By mish-mashing them together, the result is less valuable as information that communicates the distinction is lost. Every doctrine is a theory, so it is a redundancy.Greg Bard 19:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Caribbean Philosophical Association

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Caribbean Philosophical Association, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.temple.edu/isrst/Events/CPA.asp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites 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.)

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Associated Students, Chico

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Associated Students, Chico, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.chicowiki.org/Associated_Students,_Chico. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites 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.)

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Caribbean Philosophical Association

A tag has been placed on Caribbean Philosophical Association 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 clear 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 verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Bell Memorial Union.jpg

Thank you for uploading this media, (it's appreciated.)

However, it would be nice if you could give some kind of indication as to what license the media is under. That way other people can be confident in making use of it for many varied purposes :)

Adding license information also helps prevent media you've put effort into creating from being deleted :)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators which will assist you :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I must have done something different. I thought the form added that stuff automatically when I told it I took the picture myself. Anyway, its fixed.

Greg Bard 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mississippi Philosophical Association

The article Mississippi Philosophical Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't show any notable reason for inclusion. Just says who they are, what they do and that they have a meeting once a year.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.   allstar✰echo  21:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Caribbean Philosophical Association

The article Caribbean Philosophical Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't show any notable reason for inclusion. Just says who they are, when they were founded and who founded them. No sources either.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.   allstar✰echo  21:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Propositional logic

I noticed your question at User talk:Cyde regarding the change of Category:Propositional logic → Category:Propositional calculus. I don't know whether you have already found the reason for the change, but I thought I would point you toward this discussion in case you have not. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Associated Students, Chico

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

2012

I saw no proposal, just unilateral action by you with no discusion. Please restore the old name and content and if you want to move it, start a discussion. Dougweller (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I did give some thought to making a proposal. I even went to get the template. Then I thought better of it. Under the aegis of WP:BOLD I just moved it. I couldn't move it back if I wanted to, and I don't. I am sorry if you had grown accustomed to it. However, I sincerely belief it's for the best. I hope the category will also come into line. Be well, Greg Bard 03:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you could have moved it back. I did, and careful study showed no use of admin tools. I suggest you fix all the redirects. It should give you something to do while contemplating why I didn't also block you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how and why would I do that Arthur and why exactly did you feel the need to get involved...and exactly what redirects need to be changed as I did not change any myself? Despite a policy about assuming good faith, I really find it difficult with you wiki-stalking me. The move was appropriate. Do not threaten me. You are unjustified. I am a good faith editor, and the move was justified. Greg Bard 16:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You thought it was justified. You called it a proposal in the edit summary, but in fact you did it without discussion. Additionally, there had already been a lot of discussion about the proper title, which you either didn't know about or simply ignored. And now you've attacked an editor (and used a term we do not use) for noticing the move. The RfC would have been a much better way to start. Dougweller (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously unfamiliar with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Listen, stop trying to portray me as the problem. I have every right to do what I did, and I am perfectly willing to accept the result of the community as soon as it comes about. Also, please let me correct you as to who is attacking who also. Arthur has a history and a pattern of behavior, and it is my right to make sure that that fact goes on the record. My complaint is not an attack, its a complaint. Show some respect for what deserves respect. Your annoyance is your choice, not a policy violation or an attack -so I don't have respect for you when you play the victim. Stop the dramatizing rhetoric, and attempt to portray yourself and poor Arthur as victims. Also, let's actually discuss the merits of the proposal, rather than the wikilawyering. I would invite you to a civil discussion on the merits, however keep the drama and victim mentality to yourself, for your own edification. Be well, Greg Bard 00:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't have threatened to block you, due to our previous interactions. However, WP:BOLD doesn't apply to actions where there has been a previous consensus (for 2012 phenomenon), without an attempt to verify a new consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of the extreme amount of patience, good will and forgiveness that is required in this culture you helped to create, I accept your apology. However, at this point I would like you to actually consider the merits, and the possibility that you should have left the article where I put it. (You know the real priority -- content) If I had made a proposal, someone would have created a redirect in the opposite direction, making it even less likely to be successful for purely technical reasons. I don't need people with bad attitudes looking for any bureaucratic reason that appears to them to revert my contributions. The article 2012 phenomenon is not one of these it's one of these, as is clearly supported by the articles and category structure. All the consensus in the world does not change that. Furthermore, at no point was there any consideration of the appropriate title "2012 apocalypticism," in the consensus, so quite frankly I thought people would see immediately that it was appropriate and leave it alone. If you don't take a moment to consider the merits of what I am doing, then we don't have a respectful relationship. I've only edited every "ism" in the whole WP. Give me some f-ing credit. It is just that simple Arthur.Greg Bard 15:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

2012 apocalypticism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2012 apocalypticism. Since you had some involvement with the 2012 apocalypticism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). (Nominated for valid reasons, this time. Your proposed "reason" for deletion wouldn't have required deletion. My does. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Associated Students, Dominguez Hills

The article Associated Students, Dominguez Hills has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not separately notable; I have already merged the information to California State University, Dominguez Hills.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed my mind and I have removed the "proposed deletion" tag from this article, since I see that it is one of a group which all have the same notability problem. I will be taking the whole group to the discussion page "Articles for Deletion" instead, so that they can be discussed by the Wikipedia community and consensus can be reached. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agricultural Foundation of California State University, Fresno. I appreciate the work you put into creating these articles, but they seem like unnecessary content forks of information already in the parent university articles. If a consolidated list of the CSU support organizations is desired, I would suggest listing them in the Auxiliary Organizations Association article, instead of separate articles for each. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Epistemology Portal

Category:Epistemology Portal, which you created, has been nominated for 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 02:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Ethics Portal

Category:Ethics Portal, which you created, has been nominated for 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 02:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Article for deletion Logic and Conversation

FYI Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Logic_and_Conversation. Cheers. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, at least cite these widespread changes you're making.

You have repeatedly changed articles so that syntactically defined terms are "ontologically .... ideas, concepts or abstractions" and then claiming that this material is important to philosophers. Well, I certainly dispute that claim, since I've never seen anyone define a formal symbol as an idea, concept or abstraction. But, you say that it's important. Great. Can you please cite a single author who makes this claim? As it appears now, this is your own pet interpretation, important to you. Surely, you don't want to give that impression, so show us where some reliable source claims, for instance, that a proposition is a concept. (The Metalogic citation does not show any such thing, near as I can see.) Thanks.Phiwum (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Model (logic)

I've proposed it be merged into model theory until such time as something can be said about it. What you've added should be placed in model theory to the extent it makes sense. It's possible that if some of the other topics were expanded, it would be worth a separate article, but we're not anywhere near there yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of File:Barin in a vat (en).png

File:Barin in a vat (en).png, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Barin in a vat (en).png and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of File:Barin in a vat (en).png during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Greg Bard 05:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Association for Greek Philosophy

A tag has been placed on International Association for Greek Philosophy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 05:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In my role as an administrator, I removed the speedy deletion tags. However, the current state of the article suggests that it might be nominated for deletion at AFD at any time. When you create new articles, it's best to include at least a sentence or two that lets the reader infer why we should have an article on the subject, and an independent reference. One benefit of that practice is that it placates the new page patrol people. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of International Association for Greek Philosophy

I have nominated International Association for Greek Philosophy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Association for Greek Philosophy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 14:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Clark Glymour

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Clark Glymour, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ihmc.us/groups/cglymour. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites 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.)

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Category rename/change proposals

I believe "Metaphysicians" should be "Metaphysicists" and, separately, that "English metaphysicians" is too small a category, and should be double-upmerged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you are wrong. This was a discussion a long time ago and we settled it. I don't much care either way if English metaphysicians are upmerged to Metaphysicians.Greg Bard 18:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence of a previous discussion. Could you point to it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

hang it up arthurGreg Bard 22:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Aesthetics count

A tag has been placed on Template:Aesthetics count 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. Si Trew (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know if you do plan to use this. I removed the tag to give you time to respond, but if the template is no longer needed it probably should be deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"philosophie stub"

Hello, I saw you added recently a "philosophy stub" on Talk:HO_(complexity) Can I ask you if you think it is really the good thing to add, this things is formal mathematic/computer theory; it does not seems to have anything at all to do with philosophy. I guess it makes sens to remove it, because there is no real sens to speak of philosophy here. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I put it there is that the logic wikiproject is divided between math and philosophy. Please do free free to remove the philosophy tag, and place it under the math "foundations" tag. In placing the tag, I am not implying that it is a "philosophy" article (which I find is very distasteful to certain editors), I am merely setting it on its way to being properly classified. I am not an immediatist. Greg Bard (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Proposed deletion of Nontheism

I sadly don't have access to any online databases/hard librabries that would cover the concept right now (neither of my short dictionaries of philosophy include the term); however, for what it's worth, I'd recommend you stop contacting people within the category, as that could easily be construed as canvassing. If it is deleted, remind me in October and I'll have a delve into my university library. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Canvassing_by_User:Gregbard_in_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNontheism . BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Philosophy pages by type

Category:Philosophy pages by type, which you created, has been nominated for 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. Cgingold (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Agh staszic brown pin.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Agh staszic brown pin.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

You wrote:
"Greetings,

Welcome to the Philosophy project. If there is anything that I can help you with, large or small, just let me know. Be well,Greg Bard (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)"

Thanks Greg. I am working on my first article. Questions: 1.) is the correct way to contact another user via scribbles on their talk page? 2.) any strictures against using HTML notation rather than Wiki notation [e.g. bolding, italics, etc.]?

Carl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisman62 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Philosobot

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Philosobot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 14:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Philosophyx

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Greg Bard (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 4#Category:Philosophical works

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 4#Category:Philosophical works. Fayenatic (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Intuitionism (deductive)

Category:Intuitionism (deductive), which you created, has been nominated for 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☯ 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests forvapproval/Philosobot

Hey Gregbard, now that you have your tool server account, do you think you could start your trial for Philosobot? Tim1357 ^talk

Thanks for the note Tim, currently I am in a transitional phase of my life. I have just moved to a new area, etcetera. I will be getting back to work on Wikimedia projects very soon, but right now I am only checking in on a spotty basis.Greg Bard (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Curtis Franks

The article Curtis Franks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:PROF.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 21:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and ... ...

Dear Gregbard, Thank you very much for your participation. Actually I have a lot on mind but I am not a very good editor for wiki, therefore always need someone like you to shape the article. I also feel that there should be a bigger article on Death anxiety than the current "Thanatophobia" and also we can make further independent articles on each of these theories of death anxiety. Let me know what you think. Thanks again!Shoovrow (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Metasyntactic variable

Hi Gregbard. I explained the reasons for my concern on the talk page. Please could you do the same, rather than just reverting me? Evidently an anon editor (not me) agrees with me, so it is a contentious point and it would be sensible to discuss it. My argument is: "metasyntactic" seems to be used by hackers, and "metavariable" or "metalinguistic variable" seems to be used by logicians. Moreover, I think the different communities use these different words to mean different things. ComputScientist (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The "anon" editor is a sockpuppet of an editor who likes to harass me. I did at one time post a question to the talk page asking whether or not they are the same a long time ago. I have since discovered that they are. There is on-going hostility toward covering within the fields of logic and philosophy terms which are rightly topics within those fields. I have been through this a million times before. Please show some respect, as I have provided a reference.Greg Bard (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A reference that does not support your usage of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.30.228 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is plain for anyone who reads it that you are incorrect.Greg Bard (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please show us where, on page 13 of this book [3] the usage you assert is cited. That *is* the reference you gave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.10.175 (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The book uses a question and answer format. In answer to question number 7: " 'Let A and B be arbitrary formulas of a formal language L.' Explain the function in this sentence of the letters 'A' and 'B'." The answer given is " 'A' and 'B' here are metalinguistic variables, belonging to the metalanguage of the language L."

You have gratuitously wasted my time. Greg Bard (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello, Gregbard. You have new messages at Jamesontai's talk page.
Message added 20:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Tim Bays

The article Tim Bays has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:PROF.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 08:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest outline development

New outlines (recently added to article space)

• Outline of British Columbia
• Outline of Saskatchewan
• Outline of culture
• Outline of forensics
• Outline of basketball

Cleaned up

• Outline of Trinidad and Tobago
• Outline of Saint Martin
• Outline of Wisconsin

The Transhumanist 20:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:UBX/Brevard county, Florida

A tag has been placed on Template:UBX/Brevard county, Florida 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. Greg Bard (talk) 07:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Theorem/temporary refactor

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Greg Bard (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How kind of you to let yourself know! Yes, I know about Twinkle's automated editing, but I thought it was a little amusing. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Outlines status report

Gregbard,

I thought you might like to be brought up to speed on what's happening (and not happening) with outlines these days...

I've been targeting sports WikiProjects, contacting them with notices concerning the potential for an outline for each of their subjects. So far, two WikiProjects have responded and have created Outline of cricket and Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling, respectively. Meanwhile, I've been working on Outline of basketball and Outline of tennis, trying to bring them up to completed status so they can serve as examples for editors interested in other sports to follow.

An editor named Thruxton is really supporting the outline concept, and is involved with the motorcycling one. He created and placed a template banner on the talk page of each of the articles for which a link was included on the motorcycle outline. So I did the same thing for the basketball outline.

Other outlines that have undergone substantial development recently include:

• Outline of British Columbia
• Outline of Saskatchewan
• Outline of forensics
• Outline of epistemology

Canada looks like it is the next country to get outlines for its subdivisions. The only others that have them are the United States and the United Kingdom. Canada has 8 more provinces and 3 territories.

The outline WikiProject really needs active members. There's lots of work that needs to be done. Work falls into two general areas: developing existing outlines and creating new outlines.

Existing outlines need to be improved in the following ways:

1. The red links on the country outlines need to be replaced by blue links (such as section links) or be moved to the corresponding talk page where they can be monitored without cluttering up the outline itself.
2. The General Concepts section on the remaining outlines needs to be replaced with sections that pertain more specifically to the subject. For example, the Outline of wine had 3 miscellaneous link sections ("General concepts", "Concepts and issues", and "Other". They were placed in new sections on "Wine production", "Wine marketing and distribution", "Wine selection", "Wine and culture", "Wine and health", etc. The "General concepts" section in outlines is meant to be a temporary "link dump" for holding links until someone gets around to placing them under appropriate subheadings.
3. The List section of most of the outlines is the same way. Those links would be more useful if placed within other sections that they pertain to.
4. Many of the the external link sections are sparsely populated and need more links.
5. Many outlines lack a lead paragraph. A short description up there can help in subject identification so that readers know instantly what the subject covered by a particular outline is about.
6. The General reference section in many of the country outlines has blanks that need to be filled in.
7. The Government section of many of the country outlines are incomplete and need the government forms and branches corrected or added.
8. Most outlines are not complete, and need links to the missing subjects or to lists of the missing subjects.
9. Most outlines lack pictures. For good picture coverage see Outline of Vatican City, Outline of Japan, Outline of Thailand, Outline of Taiwan, Outline of Iceland, Outline of France, Outline of Gibraltar, Outline of architecture, Outline of forestry, and Outline of sharks.

The effort to create new outlines needs to be focused on blatant gaps in coverage. Some of those include:

• Under culture, most of the sports are missing.
• Also under culture, Outline of cuisine is missing, and outlines for the major types of food.
• Geography is missing outlines for its branches:
  • Outline of human geography
  • Outline of physical geography
  • Etc.
• Most of health is missing
  • Outline of disease
  • Outlines on the branches of medicine
  • Etc.
• Many branches of science are missing
• And outlines for major types of animals
  • Outline of mammals
  • Outline of fishes (though we do have an Outline of sharks).
  • Outline of insects
  • Outline of dogs
  • Outline of cats
  • Etc.
• Eras of history that are missing include:
  • Outline of the Industrial Revolution
  • Outline of modern history
• Under wars, the following major wars are missing:
  • Outline of World War I
  • Outline of the Korean War
  • Outline of the Napoleonic Wars
  • Outline of the American Revolutionary War
• In philosophy
  • The following two core branches are missing:
    • Outline of ethics
    • Outline of metaphysics
  • And most of the philosophical sub-disciplines and major philosophies are missing
    • Outline of social philosophy
    • Outline of existentialism
    • Etc.
• Under religion, the following major religion is missing:
  • Outline of Judaism
• Under psychology, or people, or somewhere...
  • Outline of sex
• We're missing outlines for most of the scientific fields
  • For a list of the fields, seeOutline of science#Scientific fields
• Under transport, the following blatant gaps exist:
  • Outline of roads
  • Outline of bridges
  • Outline of tunnels
  • Outline of rail transport
  • Outline of boats
  • Outline of shipping

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other gaps that I didn't spot that others would spot instantly.

So, there's lots of work to be done, and no team. Very few outlines get created by the passer-by, and fewer still get adopted by dedicated editors (the notable exception being Outline of Buddhism).

We need some fanatics (like User:Buaidh, but he's off on some esoteric meta-editing project).

Help!

The Transhumanist 22:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on outlines. I have been meaning to create outlines for each branch of philosophy for some time, (one of many things I have been meaning to get to). I certainly appreciate and support your efforts, especially in the face of a hostile political environment to them. My only criticisms are A) I think there is no need to tag the talk page, as I think it may be perceived as unnecessary and obnoxious, and B) perhaps it is only necessary to have outlines for academic areas, and not every little thing. I have no intention to take any efforts to do anything about these criticisms, however I offer them as advisory. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the banners are relevant, and they seem to be attracting editors to the two outlines we've tried this for. They are innocuous, and nobody has complained. They don't look much different than wikiproject banners, and fit in well with those. We'll take it slow and easy on this front.

With respect to "every little thing", I agree. But subjects with lots of coverage on Wikipedia aren't little. I was very surprised how many articles about chocolate Wikipedia has (we have even showcased it - see below). So for chocolate lovers, the Outline of chocolate is quite useful for surveying that subject. Subjects with just a few links don't necessitate an outline, but those with a hundred or more links probably do.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #184

I'm very glad to hear that you wish to work on philosophy outlines. Which branches of philosophy and which philosophies do you think have extensive-enough coverage on Wikipedia to warrant an outline of their own?

And more importantly, which one are you going to create and work on first?!

I very much look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist 23:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly every task force of WP:PHILO should also have an outline. I do not know when I will get to them, but I will make them a higher priority. Greg Bard (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. You mean these?

• Outline of philosophy
• Outline of aesthetics
• Outline of ethics
• Outline of logic
• Outline of metaphysics
• Outline of social philosophy
• Outline of political philosophy
• Outline of ancient philosophy
• Outline of Medieval philosophy
• Outline of modern philosophy
• Outline of contemporary philosophy
• Outline of anarchism
• Outline of analytic philosophy
• Outline of continental philosophy
• Outline of Eastern philosophy
• Outline of Marxism
• Outline of philosophy of language
• Outline of philosophy of mind
• Outline of philosophy of religion
• Outline of philosophy of science

The above outlines would sure help to flesh out the philosophy section.

When do you plan to get started?

A few edits a day is all it takes! (And simply creating one may inspire others to get involved).

The Transhumanist 23:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary philosophical literature

Would it make sense to categorize the category "Philosophy journals" in this category? After all, all current journals could be argued to be "contemporary philosophical literature". The consequence of that would be that it would not be necessary to tag "philosophy journals" also as "Contemporary philosophical literature". What do you think? --Crusio (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet encountered any philosophical journals from the modern, medieval, or ancient eras, so perhaps it would be all right to place the category under Contemporary philosophical literature and be done with it. However, the question remains. Are there any philosophical journals from before the contemporary era?Greg Bard (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Logic and Analysis

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Journal of Logic and Analysis, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2010-April/014657.html.

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.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, even though this was not a complete copyvio anymore, it still was a very close paraphrasing, which still is not allowed... Apart from that, what makes this very new journal notable? Normally I would prod this on sight, but in this case I thought I'd ask you first, because perhaps I am missing something. However, as far as I can see, there are no sources and the journal does not seem to be included in any selective indexes either. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Outline of Canada just survived AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Canada

The Transhumanist 04:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Tools for gathering links

• Grep — search pages titles using regexps.
• CatScan — powerful search using categories, included templates, etc.

When you are ready to start building outlines on philosophy, these tools should help a lot in finding subtopics to include. The Transhumanist 05:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Logical-hexagon.png

Thanks for uploading File:Logical-hexagon.png. 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) 05:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Spock

Thank you for fixing this problem in Template:Logic. (I'm not going to try to make an appropriate pun, here.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:ScreenHunter 04 Nov. 24 00.47 copy.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ScreenHunter 04 Nov. 24 00.47 copy.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) 08:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Journal of Logic and Analysis

The article Journal of Logic and Analysis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

New journal, not yet notable: no third party sources, apparently not indexed anywhere. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Journal of Logic and Analysis for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Journal of Logic and Analysis, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Logic and Analysis until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crusio (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picking

Hi, now that Cherry picking is a disambig, could you help fix the resulting mis-directed links per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true is a big help. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 16:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I use AWB. I won't be too long to do it (but not this minute).Greg Bard (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:In

Template:In has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Aesthetics-taskf

Template:Aesthetics-taskf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Browsebarphil

Template:Browsebarphil has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Chico-seal.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Chico-seal.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Red question mark.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Red question mark.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(Jean KemperN (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Message from Jean-François Monteil alias Jean Kemper concerning the article Robert Blanché

Dear Gregbard, thank you for creating the article Robert Blanché. I have about Structures intellectuelles written a short neutral text that may be informative for the potential reader.Robert Blanché died in 1975. Nine years before,in 1966, he published with Vrin: Structures intellectuelles. Therein, he deals with the logical hexagon. Whereas the logical square or square of Apuleius represents four values: A,E,I,O , the logical hexagon represents six, that is to say, not only A,E,I,O but also two new values: Y and U. I should be glad if you could illustrate the short text by inserting underneath the figure of the logical hexagon as you did for the article logical hexagon, so judiciously created by you a few weeks ago. It goes without saying that the best would be that both the logical square and the logical hexagon might be represented. Side by side. Yours cordially. Jean-François Monteil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean KemperN (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (Jean KemperN (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC))(cf. here)

Histmerge request

• You made a request for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy/Article_alerts to be history-merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Article alerts/Header. I cannot do this, as the histories of these 2 pages are separate and neither was cut-and-pasted to the other. I know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Article alerts/Header is transcluded into Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Article alerts, but that has no connection with history-merging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The alert at the top of Article_alerts says to WP:CSD#G6 the thing. Please advise. Greg Bard (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

twinklespeedy.js

Although it is not immediately apparent your twinklespeedy.js page is categorised in Category:Wikipedia pages needing cleanup, can you please remove it form the category. If you need help to do this, just ask. Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Brevard County Road Discussion

You may be interested in some discussion here about roads in Brevard County. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Message from Jean-François Monteil alias Jean Kemper concerning the site: http:// grammaire-et-logique.tract-8.over-blog.com

(84.100.243.244 (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)) Yours friendly. Jean-François Monteil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.243.244 (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(84.100.243.244 (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC))A-Les quatre thèmes liés: -1 réalité et importance du signe paradoxal que l'auteur appelle non-marque et qui consiste dans une absence signifiante de matière phonique.

-2 nécessité pour le bien de la logique et de la linguistique générale de remplacer le carré logique, dit carré d'Aristote ou carré d'Apulée, par l'hexagone logique de Robert Blanché. Le carré a pour origine le chapitre 7 du De interpretatione, deuxième livre de l'Organon aristotélicien. L'hexagone est décrit dans Structures intellectuelles, ouvrage publié chez Vrin en 1966.

-3 transmission d'Aristote par les Arabes à l'Occident chrétien à l'époque médiévale.

-4 utilité d'examiner les problèmes de la logique modale, notamment le problème de l'implication stricte à la lumière de l'hexagone de Blanché. B- Les quatre lieux d'intervention sur la toile

- 1 site non personnel de l'Université 3 de Bordeaux: erssab

- 2 site personnel : Tract Eight-8

- 3 système des knols mis sur pied par Google. Taper "knol 000" pour comprendre le classement et taper "jean-françois monteil" site:knol.google.com pour les avoir rassemblés

- 4 http:// grammaire-et-logique.tract-8.over-blog.com. Ce quatrième site examine les articles publiés dans Wikipedia se rapportant aux questions de grammaire et de logique.

Disputed table

Please consider commenting here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy#Disputed table.

Perhaps you might also contact me by e-mail so we can discuss this minor issue at greater length. --Tenmei (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Outline collaboration

Here's the latest addition to the religion section of Portal:Contents/Outlines. Wikipedia has rich coverage on this subject. Very interesting, especially from sociological, historical, and especially philosophical perspectives.

• Outline of Sikhism

This is a call to all members of the Outline WikiProject and outline aficionados to help refine this outline. It needs annotations, missing topics added, and the entries in the general concepts section placed in more specific sections. It needs your editing skills. Let's turn it into a beehive!

Come join in on the fun and get acquainted with members of the Outline WikiProject.

The Transhumanist 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I had no idea this religion was so extensive or that it had so many followers. Hope to see you on the outline!

Javascript in categories

Hi, your page User:Gregbard/twinklespeedy.js appears in the maintenance category Category:Wikipedia pages needing cleanup, due to the way the MediaWiki software appears to parse the page as wikitext, despite presenting it as js - this appears to transclude clean-up templates in js comments.

• One solution is to replace on of the opening curly brackets with &#123; which renders as a "{".
• Note: the category is not shown on the page but the page is shown in the category.

Thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

Ok fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:LogicInv

Template:LogicInv has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

/* Atheism isn't a rejection of belief */

You wrote on the talk:Atheismpage : Folks, I've chimed in on this issue before to no avail. However, I feel it is my duty to inform you all that atheism is in fact a belief. Denying this is pretty silly. I have done a substantial amount of study in logic and critical thinking, and I wrote most of the article doxastic logic which is about reasoning about beliefs. If you read that article and get a sense of how to properly deal with beliefs, you will realize that "I don't have a belief in god." necessarily implies a belief that "There is no god." It is itself a belief and there is no rational way around that, nor is it preferable to try to get around that. I find that whole issue very unfortunate, as there are some on this talk page who have prevailed in the article with the religious belief that atheism is not a belief because it is the "the absence of a particular belief." That doesn't change the fact that it is the particular belief that there is no god. Greg Bard (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(first of all i'm not a native english speaker, so I might have a problem using the correct terminology)

I haven't studied logic, neither philosophical nor mathematical and I've read your article. However I've always resented the theist assumption that atheism necessarily requires beliefs.

The theist dogma defines that any person's view of his environment, of his ethics, of his life within a social environment requires faith , which means a person to accept (i.e. believe) without further investigation someone else's statements about his environment, about ethics or about how to live his social environment. This concept of faith of believing makes it impossible for them to merely conceive a state of mind where a person doesn't rely on beliefs to establish his view of his environment, doesn't need beliefs as basis for his ethics etc.

however I do agree that in the case where an atheist defines atheism as the belief there is no God, is indeed a belief.

So your article on doxastic logic, I don't buy it, I don't believe it because it relies on assumptions and conficting use of meaning.

what I said about atheism is not that there is "absence of a particular belief" but that there is "absence of belief" ( in the sense of the activity to "accept without verification any preconceived statements"); in that sense certain atheists don't hold a belief about God, however when confronted with a positive statement about the existence of God, they can determine that that statement cannot be verified and therefore cannot be withheld to be a true statement, hence that it requires faith or belief to accept the statement as true.

--DerekvG (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are conflating "belief" with "faith" or "religious belief". Belief is not limited to the activity of accepting without verification any preconceived statement. There is such a thing as a "reasonable belief" and that is what atheism is. If you "don't buy" the article on doxastic logic, what you are saying is that you "don't buy" logic (which I think atheists do.) Greg Bard (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Greg, it is quite irrational of you to assert that not(belief(X)) equals belief(not(X)).

Do you have a belief that DerekvG is a black man? If not, does that "necessarily imply" you believe DerekvG is not a black man?

Personally, I do not have a belief that DerekvG is a black man, nor that DerekvG is not a black man. Not holding one belief does not require acceptance of its opposite. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is very encouraging that you have produced such a good counterexample to my claim, and it would seem very solid in your eyes and the eyes of many. However there is a problem with the whole "black man" counterexample. First of all, let me state agreement that no I do not believe that DerekvG is a black man. I do not know. I have not formulated a belief on that issue, as I have suspended judgment on the issue until I have further information. There really is an absence of belief in that case. However the case of the existence of god is a different type of issue (notice that it is not merely a different issue, it is a different type of issue.) The difference is that existence is not treated as a property in the same way that blackness is. It absolutely is the case that not(belief(existence(X)) equals belief(not(existence(X)) and that is completely rational, and consistent with the principles set out in the article doxastic logic. I am sorry, but you are wrong and yes it is very silly to claim that atheism is not a belief.Greg Bard (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

@Gregbard - my english doesn't suffice to express my thoughts i'm not a Native English speaker - you wrote I have not formulated a belief on that issue, as I have suspended judgment on the issue until I have further information. There really is an absence of belief in that case. well as I've stated before , for me the significance of "belief" and "to believe" are strictly limited to "the activity of accepting without verification of any preconceived statement".

I do subscribe to Robin's statement that not(belief(X)) ≠ belief(not(X)) because essentally my life is about not(belief(X)) I cannot bring myself to belief(Y) wether Y=not(X) or Y=(X).

It's a theist conception that all humans have "to believe", it's totally inconceivable to them that people can actively persue "not to believe", it's en unrefutable part of their reference-framework. Within that framework 'not believing in the existence of god' is merely another form of belief. My point is "I have suspended judgment on the issue" and as I have no interest as to find answer immediately, nor in the long term, and there is no issue that requires an answer to this question in order to resolve the issue "my judgment is suspended indefinitely". Theist's cannot think without resolving that question in advance of all others so they confront atheist with their stated belief, and want an answer from atheists "stating" that their absence of belief is again a belief.

So confronted with the statement that "Atheism is the rejection of belief" then I say that for a certain kind of atheists, Atheism is indeed "the rejection of the act of accepting without verification of any preconceived statement". So my answer to "do you believe, there is a god?" produces the answer "I don't believe" in the significance "I don't believe any preconceived statement". --DerekvG (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

not(belief(X)) ≠ belief(not(X)) even when X = existence(Y).

Do you have a belief that there exists a person named Nancy living within a half mile of your home? If not, does that "necessarily imply" you believe no people named Nancy live within a half mile of your home? (If you do know of a neighbor named Nancy, substitute another name.)

You can, rationally, hold neither of those beliefs. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about the difference between a belief and a dispositional belief (which is a belief). The answer to your question is yes I do have a disposition toward believing that there is a person named Nancy living within a half mile of my house. I do not know of any Nancy in particular, however I live in a development with a significant enough density to make it very reasonable to believe that there is a Nancy nearby. Did I have a belief in my head about that question an hour ago? NO. However I would have beenn equally disposed to that answer an hour ago as now. Therefore, I always had that dispositional belief toward the existence of a Nancy nearby. That is how it works. Greg Bard (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider I say "I have 100 dollars." Do we agree you: may believe me, believe I'm lying, or not believe either case? That is, after I make my claim and then ask you "What do you make of my claim?", you may respond: "I believe you're truthful", "I believe you're lying", or "I haven't decided if you are truthful or lying."? GManNickG (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you would like to construct a system of doxastic logic along with an interpretation of it with me. So are we entering into a three-valued system of {T, F, U} or a two valued one with just {T, F}? If we enter into a three valued system, then yes. If we enter into a standard binary system, then it is not the case that we can "not believe either case." When reasoning, I tend to prefer a two valued system because any system with three or more values does not necessarily give you an answer to the question 'is a claim true or false?'

"p" is "I have 100 dollars." and you are asking me if I believe p (i.e. "Bp" is true.), believe it is a lie (i.e. "~Bp" is true or alternatively "Bp" is false) or "not believe either case" which is to say "~B(p or ~p)" or alternatively "~Bp and ~B~p". You see, if we adopt the principles set forth in the doxastic logic article (i.e. the principles that reasonable people use) if I haven't decided if you are truthful or lying then that is independent from those principles. You cannot derive "I haven't decided between p and ~p." within such a system. Greg Bard (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Let us perhaps start with a two value system, where a proposition is either true or false. Then is it possible for ~B(p ^ ~p) to be true, where p is "god exists"? GManNickG (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You see the idea is that you never want to have "p and ~p" in your logical system. If you have that, you have an unsound system. You can have "~B(p ^ ~p)" but you cannot have "B(p ^ ~p)" This is the case for "god exists" or any other claim. I think at this point you will be tempted to equate "~Bp" with just not having a belief, however the way these systems work, if you are ever able to write down "~Bp", then you will necessarily and inevitably be able to write down "B(~p)" using the proper rules of the system. The only way around this is to forsake salve veritate which leaves you in the foolish position of saying "I believe q, but I never said anything about believing ~~q, that's totally different!"

Apologies again. Clearly and obviously atheism is a belief, and it is only the faulty reasoning of some prominent atheists recently that makes anyone think the opposite. It is quite unnatural in everyday speech. After all, if you and I are both atheists...WE SHARE THE SAME BELIEF. Time and time again, I can come up with natural language examples where it is obvious, but you and others are attempting to foist this notion on the issue in an attempt to "educate" on the proper way to look at atheism. There is a similar problem going on with creationists abusing the word "theory." Ever hear: "After all evolution is just a theory (nyah nyah nyah)." Yes, evolution is a theory, but they are morons because they don't really understand what a theory is. Claiming that atheism is not a belief is similarly foolish.Greg Bard (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but that was a typo. I'm well aware of soundness, sorry I misled you. I meant: is it possible for ~Bp ^ ~B~p to be true, for some proposition p?

That said, I find your approach is a mix of honesty and dishonesty. You're clearly willing to reply to questions being raised honestly (which is nice for a change, compared to others!), but it seems that you try to go on further with assertions of authority. Anyone can claim it's "obvious", and that to disagree is "foolish", but you know "obvious" isn't a form of reasoning, nor are personal attacks. Why include those, when your argument could be much more succinct without them? (Shall I simply claim "you're obviously wrong" and pretend that's a sound argument demonstrating you're wrong?)

Just be patient and we'll walk through it together. :) No need to just claim you're right without demonstration, I promise we'll see it to the end. GManNickG (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay I apologize AGAIN, as I preficed this whole discussion at talk:atheism that I do not wish to seem arrogant, etcetera. However, it REALLY is obvious that atheism is a belief, and the only reason there is any claim to the contrary is muddled reasoning, and/or carelessness with words on the part of certain prominent atheists who otherwise are very authoriative. Someone like Hitchens, or Dawkins may have read a scant bit on modal logic in their day, however it is not something they have studied in depth. I would chalk this whole misunderstanding to just being a little careless with words, and having enthusiastic followers take up a torch and running with it. I do have to claim authority however. I didn't study this stuff academically for nothing, only to have others who haven't studied it tell me about it. Furthermore, every individual step in mathematics and logic is supposed to be obvious. If p is true then ~~p is obviously true and there is nothing arrogant about that. With that said, let me provide a rigorous, conclusive proof that should bring the whole issue to an end. I will try to be as fair as possible.

Do you see in the doxastic logic article the "type 1 reasoner" holds p $\vdash$ Bp ? That "tee" thing means that I am able to write what follows on a line of a proof using the rules of the logical system I am using. "p $\vdash$ Bp" means that if I can write "p" on a line of a proof, then I can validly write Bp on a subsequent line of a proof. Under the interpretation that this doxastic logic is intended to express true statements, it also means that if "p" is a true statement, then "Bp" (i.e. "It is believed that p") is also a true statement. So far so good.

There is a well known valid theorem of logic called modus tollens: p $\to$ q, ~q, THEREFORE ~p. Don't get me wrong, a valid system of logic can be constructed without it. However all of the true statements that can be derived in a complete valid system with it, can also be derived in a complete valid system without it.

So from here it is pretty straightforward: We are starting out accepting that "~Bp" is true. That is, the whole point of this exercise it to explore the logical consequences of "It is not the case that it is believed that there exists a god." We are able to write "~Bp" on a line as an accepted premise, or even accepted as an axiom of the system.

So we have "p $\vdash$ Bp" . We have "~Bp". Therefore we have "~p" by modus tollens. From there we simply substitute "~p" into the original "p" and we get "B~p." We are necessarily able to write "It is believed that there is not a god." is a valid statement within the system. QED Greg Bard (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

[Side discussion] Again, you mixed honesty with dishonesty; you'd be better off without the first paragraph. "It's not obvious, it's REALLY obvious"; really? Come on, stop doing that. Don't claim it is, show it is, or once again: shall I say, "you're REALLY obviously wrong" as an argument for you being wrong? Also, you seem to be implying I believe what I do because I'm a copy-cat of some either people, which is both false and presumptuous. Though I understand where you are coming from (it can be very annoying seeing people do that), try not to push your generalizations on me, please. "If p is true then ~~p is obviously true" except in intuitionist logic, for example. Again: obvious doesn't tell you what to believe, it tells you how hard it is to believe it. You need to show us what to believe, not how easy it is for you to see it. And yes, with that said, let's continue. :)

(By the way, you have a typo in your bit on modus tollens: you say "~p, THEREFORE ~q", when you meant '~q THEREFORE ~p'.)

You are absolutely correct, and I have corrected it above.-GB

Your proof is very simple, indeed. However, I don't accept that humans are Type 1 reasoners. Can you justify your use of 'p $\vdash$ Bp'? GManNickG (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you do not accept that valid reasoners hold p $\vdash$ Bp then there is no way for them to reason. The point of this axiom is to introduce the valid theorems of logic as axioms in one's personal system of logic. I seems that people are mad at me for constantly saying that atheism is "obviously" a belief. Well I think if you insist on holding your position in the face of a rigorous logical proof the same way that religious believers do theirs, you will be even more angry if I switched to the language used in the Moore's paradox article. You see if you do not accept that p $\vdash$ Bp then you will not see the absurdity in statements like "'It's raining but I don't believe that it is raining.'" or "There does not exist a god, but I do not believe there does not exist a god." Greg Bard (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, I am not following your proof. You wrote "p $\vdash$ Bp", "~Bp" and "~p". At this point, should p be "god exists" then the premise "B~p" is strong atheism, but you certainly wouldn't want to start the proof with your conclusion. So, continuing, substituting ~p for p gives the alternative statements of "~p $\vdash$ B~p", "~B~p" and "~~p" or "p". Again substituting p as "god exists", it is thus not believed there is no god and god exists. Either way, I don't see how the substitutions work. In addition, the reason that strong atheism differs from the broader definitions is because, in general, the absence or rejection of an affirmed belief only implies absence/rejection. An absence/rejection does not, alone, tell one why the belief is absent/rejected. Furthermore, the question of existence/nonexistence can be shown to be really no different from the black/white counter-example given earlier above. For instance, presently I'm not a Martianist (a believer in Martians). I reject this idea until solid evidence says otherwise, and furthermore this "aMartionist" rejection does NOT imply I claim or believe that they do not exist, or that there have never been any Martians, or that Martian remains do not indeed exist, since I simply have not accepted any affirmation or belief in the existence of Martians. In short, rejecting a theory does not necessarily entail falsifying the theory and believing the theory to be bogus. But, the other way around, believing a theory is false does imply a rejection of that theory. Again,in this example at least, a theory specifically about existence/nonexistence has not altered the outcome. --Modocc (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

He did not start with "B~p", but with "~Bp". GManNickG (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Er, right, thanks... that was a typo on the intermediate result, which led me astray momentarily at that point. So we are given "p $\vdash$ Bp", "~Bp" and "~p". "~Bp" is does not believe god exists. That is fine, but substituting ~p for p we have "~p $\vdash$ B~p", "~B~p" and "~~p" or "p". Therefore, the premise gets changed in the process, thus, I don't see what this proves. --Modocc (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, let's start from the top. I think you're confusing "p" as a placeholder with "p" as the proposition under consideration. In any case, let's introduce more names to make things clearer.

We only start with the rule "p $\vdash$ Bp" ("p" can be substituted with any proposition, like "2 + 2 = 4" or "A comes before B"). Then we let "g" be the proposition "god exists", and let "~Bg" be true (that is, we don't believe god exists).

We note that "g $\vdash$ Bg" is true (by substituting "g" into our first rule). Since "Bg" is false ("~Bg"), we know "g" is false ("~g"); by modus tollens.

Since "~g", from our first rule we derive "B~g" (by letting "p" be "~g"). Therefore "~Bg" is equivalent to "B~g". Therefore atheism is a belief.

Conceptually, it says "The believer believes every true proposition. He doesn't believe g, which means g is false. Since "g is false" is true, the believer believes g is false. (So not believing "g" means believing not "g".)

The logic is valid, but the premise is ridiculous: as humans, we don't believe every true proposition, or we'd be omniscient. What Greg is essentially arguing is: this believer is a perfect believer, he doesn't believe god exists, so god doesn't exist. (And therefore he believes god doesn't exist.) This is patently absurd: what humans believe has no bearing on what is actually true. GManNickG (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the derivation for me. I'll add that for it to derive for every "~Bp", "~p" and "B~p" is unrealistic given the agnostic counter-examples such that "~Bp" and "~B~p". --Modocc (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

When you accept p $\vdash$ Bp as an axiom of your personal logical system (and you really should) you are able to create substitution instances which preserve the validity of statements you create using that axiom. That is to say that if everything else you write on a line of a proof is true and you substitute one of those lines into the variable "p" everywhere it occurs in the axiom, then you can validly write that substitution instance on a subsequent line. I am tempted to say the same thing someone said to me at talk:atheism: "let it die." Atheism is a belief and a theory and a fact.

In response to Modocc's claim that it is ridiculous to say that humans don't "believe every true proposition, or we'd be omniscient" You see the thing is the axiom isn't about believing every empirical fact in the universe, because we can't possibly know every empirical fact. Facts can be hidden and that is why we have CSI investigators. However the truths of logic cannot be hidden. They are such that any person sitting on a couch alone can come up with them if they tried. This is the nature of a human being's rational capacity. The axiom introduces those as personal beliefs, and that is how it works. Even if you never thought of it explicitly, when you are faced with the truth that "if p is true, then ~~p is true." you automatically add it to your set of beliefs. However, there is no reason we cannot introduce other truths the same way once faced with them. Greg Bard (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"...and you really should..." Greg, we don't just get to pick and choose which logical systems we want to apply to reality. Shall I adopt a system of trivialism, and claim I'm God? You need to support your application of this axiom to reality. Please do so. Otherwise we have no reason to believe your argument is sound, and have every right to continue to reject that atheism is a belief.

(I was the one that initially said it was ridiculous, by the way.) Does the axiom not state that "if a proposition is true, it is believed"? We need to agree on this first before we go on.

[Side discussion] You've still got that mix of intellectual honesty and dishonesty. Stop simply claiming you're right and continue to show us, please; drop the indirect appeals (I'm very grateful you don't simply stick with appealing to your own authority and continue to discuss this directly, though, so thank you). GManNickG (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You are starting to bother me. Stop accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty" as if you know my mind. First of all Wikipedia guidelines call for assuming good faith, so CAN IT. Second of all, does that make any sense AT ALL? I'm engaging in a discussion with fellow atheists and I'm going to be intellectually dishonest, as if I am putting you on or something?!? You are the one with the extraordinary claim (That atheism is not a belief) and I have entertained this nonsense sincerely and without any personal remarks against anyone. Furthermore, It is becoming clear that I am dealing with religious believers for whom no amount of valid reasoning matters. I literally have constructed a proof in a system of logic and that doesn't move you at all?!?!? I am pretty sure you are the one who needs to justify yourself at this point.

Furthermore, the axioms of logical systems are chosen by fiat by their creators, so yes we do get to pick and chose. As far as supporting that the system I have constructed applies to reality... p $\vdash$ Bp is a basic requirement of any reasonable person... and you choose to reject it. What more do I need to come up with?!?!? I am willing to discuss this further, but I am starting to be justified in believing that you are not capable (for whatever reason) of coming to realize that what I have laid out for you is the proper way to analyze this issue, and that the way you have analyzed it heretofore is not the proper way to analyze it. Stop thinking that way. Really. Greg Bard (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I upset you, I'll stop focusing on what I perceive is extra baggage, and focus on what we both agree is useful discussion. You're right, I wasn't being fair in my approach.

"I literally have constructed a proof in a system of logic and that doesn't move you at all?!?!?" I already agreed your logic is simple and valid. The problem isn't that it's not valid, elegant, or thought-provoking, but in that you haven't proved its soundness. I can construct a proof in a system of logic that makes anything true, if I pick my premises carefully enough. What needs to be done is to relate those premises to reality, so that it becomes reasonable to hold true with respect to that reality. (For example: "All humans are blue. Nick is a human. Therefore, Nick is blue." It's valid logic, but I think we both agree the premise "All humans are blue." needs to be supported. In that same way, I think "p $\vdash$ Bp" needs to be supported.)

"I am pretty sure you are the one who needs to justify yourself at this point." No, sorry. The burden is still on you, as you're making the (contrarian) claim that atheism always entails belief. Piling up arguments doesn't add up to a shift in this burden, no matter how convincing or unfortunately frustrating it may be. (I understand the desire, though!)

So if I attend a meeting of the Flat Earth Society as a guest speaker, all of a sudden the burden of proof is on me? I don't think so. Certainly such a speech would point out that they have the extraordinary claim given all the evidence, and therefore it is up to them to justify their belief. Greg Bard (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"the axioms of logical systems are chosen by fiat by their creators, so yes we do get to pick and chose" I agree with this, I'm sorry if I was unclear. I think we agree systems can be constructed according to our whim, but I object to the idea these systems all necessarily should be accepted as sound or applicable to reality or daily use. (For the reasons I have above.)

" p $\vdash$ Bp is a basic requirement of any reasonable person." I'm sorry if this next sentence frustrates you, but I ask it with sincerity: Why? Why is that a basic requirement of a reasonable human person? I object to this very much, but again I need you to answer this question before we go on, as I think this is where our dissent is: Does p $\vdash$ Bp mean 'If a proposition is true, it is believed?' (Apologies if you answered that question already and I failed to see it.) If we disagree there, then it'll be hard for us to agree on whether the premise is supported and by what. As always, thank you for continuing the discussion. GManNickG (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay I accept your apology, and I think we have refocused on the issue. However I am still a little incredulous at this. I have the contrarian claim? Really? So you find at cocktail parties that people just go along with you when you claim atheism isn't a belief? Really? I am pretty sure the prevailing view is that atheism is a belief, and that a certain segment in the atheist community is trying to promulgate the opposite to the wider community. That atheism is not a belief is a completely unnatural construction.

Constructing axioms by fiat is not the same as by whim. The idea is that the system has to produce valid theorems.

Yes, I am very frustrated by your sincere question, because the answer is obvious (No, I don't mean to be a jerk). Do you remember I said that the truths of logic are such that they can be derived sitting on the couch alone, (i.e. without doing any experiments)? The point is that THEY CANNOT BE HIDDEN. That is why I continue to insist on their obviousness. It is very similar to asking "Just why is it wrong to torture babies?" For a person with a sense of decency, the answer is obvious, and ethical reasoning about the matter is quite frustrating. as if we are talking to an uncaring robot. So too with the valid theorems of logic. If you have a rational capacity (and all humans do) it appears as obvious to you. It is also similar to witnessing a wonderful work of art and having someone ask "Just why is it a wonderful work of art?" In some cases, it can be very difficult to put into words why, and also very frustrating that it just isn't obvious. These are questions of axiology which include ethics, aesthetics, and (you guesses it) logic. Even the article Moore's paradox uncontroversially puts forth that such claims as "There is no god, but I don't have a belief that there is no god." are absurd.

I think the problem with you "not seeing it" is the same problem that religious believers have. We have the example of the crazy religious mother who throws her babies in the river "Because god told me to!" Religion turns people's brains into mush on ethical issues. They put the religion first, not reason. So too with this "atheism is not a belief" thing. It is the reasoning (as I have constructed) that should come first, not one's firmly held beliefs. In fact the whole point of doxastic logic is that it should compel you to believe certain things because they are reasonable to believe.

To address your concern with accepting the axiom: "If a proposition is true, it is believed." The intention is that it makes it possible to introduce valid theorems of logic in our (us reasonable people) reasoning. Even if you do not accept that we can use this particular axiom to introduce a claim like "God exists" or "God does not exist" we are still able to introduce such a claim on a subsequent line using a theorem that this axiom allows us to introduce. (e.g. the axiom allows us to write modus ponens on a line) The point here is that it can't be thought of as being limited to just theorems of logic. The whole point of a doxastic logic is that it can be used to apply to reality.Greg Bard (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Contrarian to the majority view of the people who are talking with you on this topic. There are more people in this discussion that don't believe atheism is a belief than do.

"For a person with a sense of decency, the answer is obvious..." No, I disagree here. I like to consider myself a decent person, but that doesn't mean that I find moral answers obvious. In fact, I think it's quite hard for anyone, including myself, to reasonably support their morals; there's a reason it's a large field in philosophy. Simply saying "it's obvious" is empty.

With respect to Moore's paradox, I think it's vague. When a human says "x is true", he is saying "I believe x is true" implicitly. The paradox, then, is in saying "I believe x is true, but I don't believe x is true." What your premise says, however, is different. It simply says "x is true", as it were known innately with absolute knowledge.

Really, Greg? Comparing me to a deluded religious woman? You think that's making any sort of point, or giving me any incentive to care about anything else you say? You're lucky I'm not thin-skinned, or I'd stop replying out of such blatant personal attacks. Do you feel better now, getting your religious rant out? Now stop. Is your goal to convince us you're right, or to feel superior? If the latter, tell us now so we can stop wasting our time. Otherwise cut the attacks out. I was kind enough to focus solely on the discussion, please do the same.

And again, I understand the point of logic, you've failed to answer the question again: What does "p $\vdash$ Bp" say in natural language? To the rest of us, it says "If p is true, it is believed." What do you make of global warming deniers, for example, or any other denier? These people do not believe true things, yet I take it you aren't afraid to label them as Type 1 reasoners in order to say atheism is a belief. How do you deal with this inconsistency? GManNickG (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• reasonable people are NOT required to believe propositions that nobody knows to be true, even if they are true. P being true does not entail that anyone believes it to be true - in fact there have been many true propositions that nobody believed to be true. In fact it would be unreasonable to believe some true propositions - such as believing in 1900 that a black person would be elected president for the first time in 2008. So what is the system about? Raymond Smullyan seems to make doxastic logic (acc to our article) about nothing more than the relationship between belief & believers. -- not about the relationship between belief, other beliefs, truth, and knowledge. In any event, nobody has demonstrated that not believing in p entails a belief that p is false. Smullyans whole system (as presented in our article, anyway) seems to assume that all propositions are known to be true or false. --JimWae (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly where I was hoping to go as soon as we confirmed we both agree the premise implies 'If a proposition is true, it is believed'. I was going to use the Riemann Hypothesis as the example, though. :) If we were Type I reasoners, we'd already know if it were provable, if it so, if it were true or false; but we don't. But this rejection is contingent on our mutual understanding of what the premise implies about human reasoners, so I withheld until he clarifies. GManNickG (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No this is not about an omniscient reasoner, otherwise there would be no point in subsequently defining an "accurate reasoner"Greg Bard (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The rule you are advocating is used by the type 1 reasoner. Thus, the question is can the type 1 reasoner be agnostic? You asserted above that "I do not believe that DerekvG is a black man. I do not know. I have not formulated a belief on that issue, as I have suspended judgment on the issue until I have further information. There really is an absence of belief in that case..." But, moving on to the proof that you have since provided, I must write down this rather important rule regarding necessity, and of course also write ~B(p) where p is the proposition "DerekvG is a black man" and therein "prove" using this influential rule that contrary to the fact you must have a belief that the statement "DerekvG is a black man" is false, B(~p) or that DerkvG is not a black man. Apparently, the type 1 reasoner is unable to be agnostic. However, given that it is quite normal and usually necessary to be agnostic when confronted with uncertainty, I'd rather avoid incorporating the rule (though glancing at its origin I am amazed that it has gotten promulgated to the extent it has). --Modocc (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Kp $\vdash$ Bp (If one knows p is true, then it is irrational not to believe p is true) works better than p $\vdash$ Bp (Regardless of whether the truth of p is known, it is irrational not to believe p). --JimWae (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The point of the axiom "p $\vdash$ Bp" is not to introduce every true proposition, it is to introduce every tautology. Subsequent lines may be used to introduce other propositions (as premises) according to the rules of the system. A type 1 reasoner may very well be agnostic if "I don't know if there is a god or not." is entered onto a line of some proof constructed by the type 1 reasoner. The question of whether or not such a proposition can be derived as a theorem of such a system (i.e. from an empty set of premises) or whether or not "B~p" can be only derived as a consequence of some introduced premise is the same question as for atheism. In our example, it is necessary to introduce as a premise "~Bp." So the point is not that "B~p" is a theorem of the system, but rather that is a necessary logical consequence of "~Bp" which is what I have proven, and what you deny. Greg Bard (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

JimWae is right about knowledge implying belief, and why it works better when the rule is used properly, but that unfortunately is not what you are doing here. Because ~Kp is true, the agnostic must at some point enter both "~Bp" and "~B~p", either together or on separate lines (it doesn't matter when). So then, by ignoring the fact, that p is by no means a tautology or theorem such that Kp is true(READ: the necessity rule N is inapplicable to the proposition given, for the rule is used only when, or is contingent on, p already being KNOWN or proved), the agnostic would get both "~Bp" -> B~p and, similarly, "~B~p" -> Bp. See the problem of where the contradictions arise now? --Modocc (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be arguing over which truth table to use for $\vdash$, material equivalence or material implication, for a rational person.

tee per material equivalence

p	Bp	p $\vdash$ Bp
T	T	T
T	F	F
F	T	F
F	F	T

tee per material implication

Kp	Bp	Kp $\vdash$ Bp
T	T	T
T	F	F
F	T	T
F	F	T

It is "rationally permissible" to believe things one does not know - otherwise there is no real difference between belief and knowledge, and no reason to discuss it. When I set my alarm, I believe I will wake up.

However, if "p" is now to be restricted to tautologies, why are we even discussing it in relationship to any statement about the existence of deities. We'd need first to see an argument that "God exists" is a tautology or self-contradiction.--JimWae (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Guys this has grown tiresome. The tee stands for syntactic consequence, and due to the interpolation theorem (i.e. that if p $\vdash$ Bp then p $\to$ Bp) it is the same as material implication, but not necessarily equivalence. I see you have introduced Kp to the situation which is a different system altogether (epistemic logic) which is an extension of doxastic logic with rules of its own. I also see that you can't see the point now that we all realize that the p stands for tautologies, but you see the point is that the principle remains the same for "god exists" or "grass is green" or any other claim. If it is not the case that you believe the claim, then you believe the negation of the claim. Give it up guys, you are religious believers. My apologies at seeming to equate Gman to a crazy religious woman. That example is really just an extreme case of which there are much milder ones (for instance, a person who insists on upholding some superstition, even in the face of evidence that it has no causal impact on the situation; or a person who insists that karma exists, even when faced with obvious examples of tragedies to innocent people, etcetera). There is no interpretation of any sound system of logic under which atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a belief, and we should embrace the reality of it. The same is true for evolution being a theory, a well supported, wonderful theory, which also happens to be a fact. We should not run away from evolution being a theory, and we should not run away from the fact that atheism is a wonderful belief, theory, and fact. Greg Bard (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just tried to post a reply regarding Jim's post, so I may need to follow up on your last comment Greg. The modal axiom N referenced[4] is somewhat broader than applying simply to tautologies and includes theorems:

• N, Necessitation Rule: If p is a theorem (of any system invoking N), then $\Box p$ is likewise a theorem.

Thus if we have p is a theorem (which is Kp in my estimation), then we get to write down that Bp is one too, and we only need implication p->Bp to do that. I suppose Gregbard is assuming we should strive to be great theorist reasoners! But the problem remains that axiom N is conditional on p being about some knowledge, this axiom maximizes knowledge, and more importantly, if the reasoner finds that p is not entailed as a theorem of his/her knowledge, then asserting or dismissing Bp is separate from this rule. Followup: Greg, you have failed to address how you would treat agnostic statements such as "~B~g and ~Bg" which implies two premises "~B~g" and "~Bg" any differently than only asserting "~Bg". Does one get to backtrack and remove any substitutions for p, after it is found that does not work (leads to the contradiction)? And if that is permitted why is the agnostic not also an atheist? Alternatively, consider an agnostic that denies the strong form of atheism with the statement "it is not true that I believe that god does not exist" so we have ~Bp where p = "god does not exist". You claim ~Bp entails B~p (in regards to statements about existence), so what is the conclusion? Is it concluded that this agnostic is really a theist from B~"god does not exist"? Why is an agnostic only an atheist or theist??? and not both?????? What is the basis for a bias? Is it your conclusion that the average agnostic is an inconsistent believer in a contradiction (believing in both existence/nonexistence)? If not then which of the two propositions in his/her premises does the agnostic prefer to believe? If nether is believed, is the agnostic a nontheist? And finally, can such an agnostic be an atheist if the term atheism becomes synonymous with nontheism? --Modocc (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I will add that its not uncommon for me to get confused, although I long ago earned a CSC degree and took courses in things like symbolic logic my rusty brain still occasionally has difficulty handling some of the meticulous details without dropping it all out of frustration. That p is Kp is assumed for p $\vdash$ Bp is not explicit, but can be made so with Kp $\vdash$ Bp. In addition, we can use the knowledge axiom, Kp ⇒ p, or "if I know p is true then its reasonable to assume its true". Then a premise such as K~Bp gives ~Bp, by the knowledge axiom, which by Kp $\vdash$ Bp and modus tollens gives ~Kp (instead of ~p as above). In essence, "if the reasoner is certain that ~Bp, then we assume that this reasoner is correct and apply these rules and get ~Kp." This is a more reasonable result that does not lead to the problems encountered above. These rules do not prevent a proof from turning into a nightmare of contradictions, but that's why we form new arguments.--Modocc (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary or preferable to enter into epistemic logic with the whole "Kp" thing. "p" stands for all tautologies, and we can presume that a rational being knows or can know all of them. Furthermore, it just makes sense that a reasonable person believes all tautologies.

In logical systems there is no difference in the truth value of entries onto a line of a proof based on whether they were entered there because they are the axioms of the system, or can be derived from previously accepted axioms, or if they are entered as premises. The point of a logical system is that the truth value is preserved. So with this in mind, the proof I provided is one within a standard logical system (i.e. not non-classical, not intuitionistic, not paraconsistent, not non-euclidean, etcetera) The system accepts the axiom p $\vdash$ Bp. We are able to enter onto a line of a proof the premise "~Bg" which I think is the one thing we ALL agree upon, i.e. that we don't believe "there is a god." From there we apply modus tollens, and then apply the original axiom again on the resulting expression "~g" and derive "B~g." The logic is flawless, and the axioms are completely reasonable to accept, and we all agree on the premise. Therefore atheism is a belief.

Another expression we will be able to derive in this system is called tertium non datur, which is to say that there is no third choice. A statement is either true or false (i.e. "~p v p"). Now certainly you will cry that in real life there are other choices such as agnosticism, etcetera. (We are still able to enter agnosticism onto a line as a premise you know, we just cannot derive it from an empty set of premises within the system as a theorem.) If you want to rely on a non-classical, or intuitionistic system, I think you will have a hard time in the real world. If a robber says "Your money or your life." you can always try to perplex him by doing a little dance (which was not one of the choices), however I wouldn't rely on such a tactic.Greg Bard (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are wrong with just about everything you have asserted again, and at some point, when you do realize that is so, its my hope that you acknowledge that I and others have taken the time and patience to try to show you, so that you do not repeat these mistakes. Axiom N is founded on the long established observation that belief follows from knowledge, and the proposition "god exists" is not knowledge. That "~Bg" (where g is "god exists") is certainly a tautological, its always true here since its the premise, but the proposition g is not a tautology nor even a theorem. Thus, you should not be substituting g for p in the statement p$\vdash$ Bp. This rule is axiom N is it not? Unfortunately, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason [perhaps one of any number of reasons] you have accepted your flawed result so strongly is because atheism is a belief in the sense "I personally know of no god", which is usually true whether or not one believes in god's existence. I personally do not know of a person named JKSillyone, but I would not rule out his or her existe4nce. In addition, I have no belief that JKSillyone exists, although I might meet him some day. --Modocc (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG! ("goodness" that is) Are you seriously asserting that we cannot substitute into a tautological logical form any claim we want? So "A ≡ A" only works if we substitute in tautologies, in your view? The original axiom is intended to make it possible to introduce any tautologies we want to use in our reasoning. However any subsequent entries onto a line can be used generally and universally filling in the variables for anything we want, provided we do so in the same way for each instance of the same variable (see substitution instance); otherwise doxastic logic is useless to talk about any claims about the actual real world of events. Say listen, calling into question the system of logic when it doesn't support your view is not exactly a great tactic to use in making an argument. You are a religious believer, face it. Greg Bard (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The rule p $\vdash$ Bp is intended to introduce infer the tautology or theorem "Bp" IF "p" is a tautology or theorem. I already provided you with a statement of axiom N that says precisely this. Also, if "p" is introduced as a premise of the proof than it would be fine to make the substitution... but this is not the case here. --Modocc (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No No No No No. "Bp" is not a theorem of the system, because theorems can be derived in a system with an empty set of premises. We only get Bp if we take p as a premise. So you are exactly incorrect. You are confusing the rules we use to reason, with the statements we are reasoning about. We are perfectly able to reason from the premise "It is not believed that there is a god." to "It is believed that there is not a god." using the rules as I have demonstrated. At this point your tactic is to claim that we just can't treat true propositions the same way as tautologies within the proof, and that just isn't true. We may substitute in any true statement for p and the truth-value of the interpretation of each line of the proof with be "true" for each line entered according to the rules of the system. Perhaps what I need to do is formally adopt a separate axiom that explicitly states that "$\vDash$ p $\vdash$ Bp"? I mean do you deny that $\vDash$p $\vdash$ Bp? Greg Bard (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

At what step in your proof do you write g $\vdash$ Bg where g = "god exists" and why do you get to do so? --Modocc (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

second break

At this point I am very weary of the procedures, axioms, symbols and the like and, in any case, you are not answering many of my questions regarding your axiom's consequences for agnostic statements. I am also not at all sure of how much rigor is involved or is being invoked, especially regarding axiom N. So lets try another approach and let me first see if I can correctly follow your logic. You are essentially taking "if p then Bp", as an axiom for all the propositions under consideration. Thus we have

• 1)If a unicorn exists, then we believe it exists.
• 2)If a unicorn does not exist, then we believe no unicorn exists.
• 3)We have no belief there is a unicorn, thus there is no unicorn.
• 4)We thus believe there is no unicorn.

Correct? --Modocc (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

AI Cats

The reason for modifying categories is that AI is itself present in the category "Philosophy of Mind", so the categories are nested and articles are double-categorised, which is generally deprecated. Maybe a better way is to keep only "Philosophy of AI" withing "Philosophy of Mind", and exclude the general category, which largely concerns computing? Redheylin (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right.Greg Bard (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

guns don't kill people theists do

Hi, I tagged (and you appear to have recently untagged) a song as philosophy, slightly seriously - slightly in jest. The song is Guns_Don't_Kill_People_Rappers_Do and I think jesting aside that the question 'whether the weapon supplier or the person wielding the weapon' is a killer should probably fall under the auspices of philosophy. I was originally dropping by to suggest expanding such a section in the article - and then retagging it with philosohpy.

But I read the thread on whether athiesm is a belief above, and thought I'd add my (inconsequential) opinion - which goes something like this.

Theism or polytheism are faiths (defined as 'belief without proof') The belief that theism (or polytheism) are false in that there is no 'god' = atheism. The belief that any other part of a theist doctrine is incorrect (but maintaining that there is a god or are gods) = heresy Not knowing which of the above to believe = agnostic Renouncing a particular faith and changing to atheism or agnosticism would be apostacy

anyway that's my tuppence for today :) EdwardLane (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The philosophy project doesn't include any songs. Almost every song expounds some kind of philosophy, so that don't make them all part of the philosophy department.Greg Bard (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stephen Francis Barker

The article Stephen Francis Barker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

After a month this article is nothing more than one sentence. No attempt has been made to demonstrate that the subject is sufficiently notable to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dolphin (t) 03:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We're recruiting art lovers!

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Danger: alert page unnoticed

The Outline of relationships was nominated for deletion.

It was then overhauled and the nomination was withdrawn.

Before → After.

Only a couple members from the Outlines WikiProject showed up at the AfD.

Do you have Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Article alerts watchlisted?

If not, please watchlist it.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 09:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Images of philosophers

Hi I noticed you are creating file pages with category:Images of philosophers. This is going in the wrong spot as the files are on commons. You should click the link that says description page there and then look at the categories that you see there, and add as needed. I am deleting the Wikipedia pages that have no picture, just a category. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Czol photo 1900 - found in effects.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Czol photo 1900 - found in effects.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 07:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

False necessity

Dear Gregbard, Would you mind taking a look at this article False necessity and see if it is not worthy of inclusion in WikiProject Philosophy? Thanks! Archivingcontext (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wealth of Nations.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Wealth of Nations.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 08:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:GBard.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GBard.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:GBard.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GBard.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

David Gilmour - category English atheists

If it's a verifiable fact, and relevant to understanding of this living person as a musician (which is the sole reason for his notability), then why don't you add this information to the article and provide a reference to a reliable source? I will not revert again though: with so many categories at the bottom of the article, no user is going to read them anyway. Regards. 81.83.134.138 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I did provide a RS in the edit summary. Any category an article is in will be justified in the text of the article. I wasn't intending to push the issue by adding text, but if that is what is required...Greg Bard (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Contrast2

Template:Contrast2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Dominant group (disambiguation)

Dominant group (disambiguation), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Dominant group (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Dominant group (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:WPPOLC/AssessNav

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Greg Bard (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

MfD

I have nominated template:User Aesthetics, which you created, for deletion, because it is an unused userbox in the template namespace. The discussion is here, if you want to comment. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 13:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thankyou for adding categories to The Flight from Woman, and for fixing the title. DMSBel (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Atheistic existentialism

Category:Atheistic existentialism, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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☯ 06:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Greeting from Cape Canaveral

Always good to meet other wiki-editors from our local area. Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I started a wiki for the Space Coast too. I live down in Barefoot Bay.Greg Bard (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 22:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that I can think of is that there is a television network that is having a bond marathon. I forgot which one (either tbs, tnt or cloo I think, but I am just not sure.) Greg Bard (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That might increase Bond traffic, but what explains the bond portal's traffic doubling while the outline's and James Bond article's traffic has stayed the same? The Transhumanist 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help fill in annotations at Portal:Contents/Outlines

Please go to Portal:Contents/Outlines' and fill in as many missing annotations as you can, even if it's only one or two. Every little bit helps!

The annotating of the entries on Portal:Contents/Outlines is nearing completion.

Annotated entries look like this:

• Basketball – team sport in which two teams of five players try to score points by throwing or "shooting" a ball through the top of a basketball hoop while following a set of rules.
• Canoeing and kayaking – two closely related forms of watercraft paddling, involving manually propelling and navigating specialized boats called canoes and kayaks using a blade that is joined to a shaft, known as a paddle, in the water.
• Cricket – bat-and-ball team sport, the most popular form played on an oval-shaped outdoor arena known as a cricket field at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-yard (20.12 m) long pitch that is the focus of the game.
• Martial arts – extensive systems of codified practices and traditions of combat, practiced for a variety of reasons, including self-defense, competition, physical health and fitness, as well as mental and spiritual development.

Entries needing annotations look like this:

• Industry –
• Construction –
• Architecture –
• Machines –
• Industrial machinery –
• Robotics –
• Mining –

The links to the country outlines don't need annotations (they are listed by region).

Even if all you can do is one or two, the support will be greatly felt. Many hands make light work.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I ran into an old post of yours...

from about 4 years ago about a desired "All pages with suffix" feature.

MediaWiki still does not have such a feature (that I know of), but there is a toolserver tool that provides that functionality. Here is an example of using it to list all Wikipedia articles with "ice hockey" in their titles:

http://toolserver.org/~nikola/grep.php?pattern=ice+hockey&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&ns=0

And because it supports regex, the searches can be very precise.

I didn't know whether or not you knew of the tool, but based upon your post mentioned above, I figured that if you didn't know about it, you'd sure want to.

Good luck, have fun.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 13:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I collect power tools useful on or with respect to Wikipedia. If you find any, please tell me about them. Thank you.

definition of stub

Hi! Just wondering whether this is the normal way to classify stubs. It does not appear to match WP:stub?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Not a stub for sure. The highest grade I give is a C. After that there should be some discussion about it.Greg Bard (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, just wondering if I misunderstood something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Returned your mediation attempt

Please try to be more respectful and civil with future posts there. Mediating might be more accepted from others, if not myself. Since you have been in contact with the user I assume you know the exact threats he made to me and the encyclopedia, but in a good faith attempt to see this resolved one way or another I have returned the text at the advice of a trusted editor and admin.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You're delusional if you are going to counsel me to be civil. You are the problem over there, and should be obvious to anyone. Drop the attitude, and I won't have to correct you.Greg Bard (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I am delusional. You don't have to correct anyone. Keep the attitude if you wish...you don't have that much more time here than I, and it isn't exactly what most editors call "civil" to state how much "better" or more "experienced" you are. Clearly you are have far more knowledge than I in many areas...but then I would certainly have knowledge you don't hold in areas as well. We had a one thread discussion where you actually "lost it" in my opinion and used vulgarity I have only seen one other time in the nearly 5 years I have edited on Wikipedia. If you decide to approach this again in a different way I am willing to listen. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you should start by backing down and apologizing. You have been completely out of line from the beginning, and at some point a few hours ago, I decide you weren't worth reporting to ANI, but this nonsense patronizing me on my talk page about how I should be more civil has me reconsidering. I was on a university committee drafting a "Guideline for Civil Debates" before there was a Wikipedia. You want to talk about barking up the wrong tree? You are delusional. You basically pissed someone off for no reason. Take a leave.Greg Bard (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it best that I stop contacting you here. It isn't helping. I tried. --Amadscientist (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A simple apology would have done wonders. It's a pretty simple thing to do. It doesn't cost anything. Your refusal to back down tell us everything we need to know about you. I mean, you are 100% in the wrong here. 100%. I tried several times to get things back on track and you refused. You don't belong here. Greg Bard (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I know one thing...I am not a proud man. I admit when I am wrong, and have no problem making public apologies when they are appropriate and my history is actually what tells us everything we need to know. What we don't know is what you need an apology for.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I approached the community in good faith, and you questioned my credibility without knowing anything about me. You aren't supposed to do that here. Here at Wikipedia, we debate civilly, and that means assume good faith. Is any of this familiar to you? Why is the world would you start off a collaboration with "I don't believe you?" That **** doesn't belong here. The fact that you haven't backed down, is an even bigger concern. You really don't get it. Greg Bard (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no...I get that. I guess you didn't get my point. It was better to think you were just being enthusiastic and not believe you, then to see you continue with what I perceived as gaming the system on behalf of a blocked user that wasn't the subject of the article. I didn't think it was starting on the right footing to scream at me when I was the recipient of the inappropriate e-mails. Why was there no apology to me for that to start with or dealing with any of the other issues such as the name problem, the COI problem, the NPOV problem, and the repeated BLP violations? I understand I upset you. I can clearly see it is not feigned, but you refuse to see how this is upsetting to me as an editor or even approach this through my eyes as seeing this as just another attempt to intimidate me off the page. I don't back down when faced with these types of actions...but am very much willing to work with anyone who is civil and sees all sides of the situation which I fully admit, I didn't seem to see you do.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(Excuse me, that's "...without knowing..." I have corrected that.)

You need to take those issues up with Mr. Pollok. It should be no surprise to see his response. He is a lawyer. You have to be a little more talented in the diplomatic collaboration department with people completely new to Wikipedia. I exchanged several emails with him, and in those communications I explained to him that we take our civil culture seriously, and that legal threats don't work, and make things worse. We communicated very civilly that whole time, and As an independent third party to the conflicts going on at that page, I thought I would intervene as one who is experienced within the Wikipedia culture, and is sympathetic to the cause of the organization behind the declaration (which is newly formed.) It would seem by any reasonable person to be exactly what is needed. You are obviously caught up in your conflict with him, and took it out on me. I have nothing to do with your conflict with him. You still after a dozen attempts to communicate with you reasonably you have no clue that I'm not the bad guy here. We may very well recruit a new competent editor to Wikipedia, if he is not dissuaded by editors you. Are you finished, because unless you apologize I will request that someone at ANI correct you. No excuse either, I've given you more chance then you deserve. Greg Bard (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sympathetic to the cause does not make you the best to mediate. No, I am not finished but will stop making any further attempts to discuss this on your page. I have no conflict with the gentleman. I never have and your just saying so, does not make it true. I will not apologize at this time, as there is nothing to apologize for and if you think the administrators will correct me for not giving an apology I am not sure what you think you can achieve with an ANI in that regards. I do not need to take up anything with someone off Wikipedia over issues involving my edits here with reliable sources. That is horrifying to even suggest. I don't see any talent you may have in diplomacy offered here. I see further belittling. I also see your attempt to mediate for the author of the subject as giving undue weight to the voice of someone blocked in an attempt to get around the sanctions that are justified. Thank you for your time, at the very least.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The 99 percent declarataion

Speaking strictly for yourself, are there any improvements to 99 Percent Declaration that you would like to see made?--Nowa (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how there is a hostile environment there. I have not gotten to the point to where I feel comfortable editing there. My concerns there were brought to my attention by Mr Pollok, the attorney for the 99% group. Mr Pollok claims that there are factual errors, and I was going to look into them. However, this madscientist person has basically taken over, and apparently has not addressed Mr Pollok's concerns. In fact, now that we are at this point, I find it very likely that the madscientist provoked Mr Pollok into making the legal threats in the first place. I think if we have the group who is the subject of the article upset about it, we will continue to have problems. If fact, if Mr. Pollok decides to move forward with legal action, I am now going to find myself hard pressed to defend Wikipedia, given that I assured Mr Pollok that things will be just fine, and that all concerns will be addressed with the process we have here. I am certainly not confident that that is what will happen at all now. If you would like to take on the task of dealing with the situation there, I would invite you to do that. I would be glad to work with you, on your talk page for instance. I remain firm in my belief that this madscientist is a complete moron, doesn't understand WP:CIVILITY, doesn't understand WP:OWN, doesn't understand WP:AGF, doesn't understand the term "established editor." I don't have to help that article at all under these circumstances. Greg Bard (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your response and I appreciate your concerns.--Nowa (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy of mathematics

Hi, I see you undid my edit of the catgeories of Philosophy of mathematics, was just curious of the reasoning? I removed Philosophy of mathematics from Category:Mathematics and Category:Philosophy by field. My reasoning was that Philosophy of mathematics is in Category:Philosophy of mathematics which is a child catgeory of both Category:Mathematics and Category:Philosophy by field. By Wikipedia:Categorization this article should therefore be removed from the parent articles. Brad7777 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Philosophy by field" is one of those categories that should have all fields of philosophy regardless of what other categories it is in.Greg Bard (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Helisaeus Roeslin

Hey, I'm not trying to be an ass at that page, but I feel strongly that an article should justify inclusion in a category per WP:Category#Categorizing pages: Categorization must be verifiable: it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. If you have a source identifying him as an "apocalyptist," please do add it to the article text. "Eschatological views" in the title of a source not used for the article doesn't really support "apocalypist," as we don't know without reading the source whether the term (first used in HR's lifetime) would've have applied to him in the usage of his day.Cynwolfe (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

According to James Randi's book The Mask of Nostradamus (Page 240), Helisaeus Roeslin made a prediction that the world would end 1654 based on a nova that occurred in 1572. He is on the List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events which is annotated. Articles should justify in text any categories it is a member of, and therefore the text should reflect the category. Greg Bard (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft

Since you added the project template, you may have a view on this. Personally I agree with you that Wollstonecraft should be included, but I'm not 'signed up'. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. RashersTierney (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Assessment/Nav

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Assessment/Nav, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

test page moved

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Greg Bard (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)