User talk:Phlsph7
![]() Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
The article Ethics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ethics for comments about the article, and Talk:Ethics/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Algebra you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Algebra for comments about the article, and Talk:Algebra/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of History of philosophy
[edit]The article History of philosophy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of philosophy for comments about the article, and Talk:History of philosophy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SilverTiger12 -- SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The Core Contest has now begun!
[edit]The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations on winning second place in this year's Core Contest. Please get in touch with me at [email protected] to arrange your prize. Best wishes, --Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
Hi! You were recommended to me as someone who might be willing to help get this article to FA status. It's a big long article, but it's also a "flagship" article, and it seems to me only right that it should be among our best accordingly - but I need help. I have never had an FA. Please give it a once over if at all possible! Any and all comments will be appreciated. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: That definitely is a big and important project. It's probably not the easiest article to get started with FA. Form a first look, it seems to be well written and researched. It's quite long at 12900 words prose size (see WP:SIZERULE) but may be acceptable given the scope of the topic.
- A few observations:
- WP:EARWIG detects no copyvios.
The earliest were the University of Bologna (1088), the University of Oxford (1096), and the University of Paris where the faculty was of international renown (c. 1150).
needs a reference- the paragraph starting with
Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and many others protested
is unsourced - Monter 2020 is listed in the source section but not cited in the article
- For some sources without a page number, you set the parameter "p" of the sfn template to "n/a". A better alternative might be to use the parameter "loc" instead to refer to named sections where the claims are found, e.g. "loc=§ 1. Introduction" instead of "p=n/a", or to remove the parameter altogether.
Both Islam and crusade negatively impacted Eastern Christianity
should this be "the Crusades"?By the sixth century, there is evidence for Christian communities
replace "for" with "of"One of the oldest representation of Jesus
replace "representation" with "representations"Early Christianity's system of beliefs and morality have been
subject-verb agreement error: system ... haveordinary people that Roman culture
replace "that" with "whom"is affirmed in the fourth century Milan edict
replace "fourth century" with "fourth-century"First century Christian writings
replace "First century" with "First-century"This destigmatized illness, transformed health care in Antiquity, and led
remove both commasexpressing tolerance for all religions, legalizing Christian worship
add "and" before "legalizing"local leaders and lower level clergy were
replace "lower level" with "lower-level"- I'm not sure about the exact rules, the article keeps switching between uppercase and lower case of the terms "west"/"western" and "east"/"eastern", for example
but large sections of the Western church remained unconvinced
anddoctrinal supremacy over the western church
few councils that occur in the early
replace "occur" with "occured"it was the Nestorian churches who were best
replace "who" with "that"- I think "the Crusades" should always be uppercase
Constantinople remained its capitol and
replace "capitol" with "capital"led folk to believe the end of the world was immanent.
replace "immanent" with "imminent"- there are various duplicate links (see WP:DUPLINK) across the article, for example, Roman Empire and Christendom in the lead section. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt might be helpful.
- The talk page says that the article uses British English. For consistency:
- replace "center" with "centre"
- replace "equaled" with "equalled"
- replace "favored " with "favoured"
- replace "favor" with "favour"
- replace "practicing " with "practising"
- replace "color" with "colour"
- replace "traveled" with "travelled"
- replace "behaviors" with "behaviours"
- Phlsph7 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- OMG!! This is amazing! Bless you! Thank you! I will get to work on every one of these today. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I copied all of these to the peer review page just in case someone else has an opinion too - cuz that never happens...
Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to hear that the comments were helpful. I have my fingers crossed for your nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- A thousand blessings on your head!! My electricity was off all day today, and I got almost nothing done. :-( Your second comment made me realize I need better sources for the entire Reformation section, so I am beginning a complete rework of that. You have helped in more ways than you know! Thank you again and again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to hear that the comments were helpful. I have my fingers crossed for your nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I copied all of these to the peer review page just in case someone else has an opinion too - cuz that never happens...
- OMG!! This is amazing! Bless you! Thank you! I will get to work on every one of these today. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
GA renomination of Arrow's theorem
[edit]Hi, just wanted to let you know I've renominated the article on Arrow's impossibility theory over at WP:GAN. I think I've fixed all the missing citations from last time. Thanks for your help! :) –Sincerely, A Lime 21:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for implementing the suggestions, the sourcing looks much better now. Good luck with the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Would you be willing to do the GA review? It should be a lot quicker this time around since you'd only need to check up on the places I'd missed the first time around. –Sincerely, A Lime 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's probably better if someone else does the second review. Just a few short observations on points that could come up during the review:
- there is one maintenance tag "dubious – discuss"
- to be on the safe side, it might be good to add citations to the following passages
Non-dictatorship—at least two voters can affect...
An ordinal (ranked) social welfare function...
Independence of irrelevant alternatives For two preference profiles...
- I'm not sure if "Holliday, Wesley H.; Pacuit, Eric (2023-02-11)" is a reliable source
- Phlsph7 (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's probably better if someone else does the second review. Just a few short observations on points that could come up during the review:
- Thanks! Would you be willing to do the GA review? It should be a lot quicker this time around since you'd only need to check up on the places I'd missed the first time around. –Sincerely, A Lime 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The 2024 Core Contest has ended!
[edit]The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
Your GA nomination of Human history
[edit]Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Human history you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
FA Existence
[edit]Coordinators say I am good to go for that review. I will get started this evening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: Sounds good, I'm looking forward to your review. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll bet you've changed your mind about that now!
However, check out my last paragraph on the review. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even with the best of intentions, reviews don't always go as smooth as one would hope for. Thanks for your thorough evaluation. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I did have good intentions, and I hoped that 'thorough' would carry enough weight to close it out. I went through that thing with a fine toothed comb! I can't believe you haven't gotten it yet. I want to complain but I know that won't help! For heaven's sakes, what more do they want? It has nothing but support. Aaarggh! I hope they don't leave you hanging for too long. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I hope that the reason for the delay just is that the coordinators haven't had the time yet to take a final look at the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have been wringing my hands and checking every day, and just now I found the notice it has been promoted!! There's some kind of delay with the bot, but you got it! See - they did finish with me. It was enough with the others that no more was needed! You got it! I am so glad!! YAY!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was on holiday, camping and hiking in the Highlands of Scotland, otherwise I am sure it would all have gone more smoothly and rapidly.
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was on holiday, camping and hiking in the Highlands of Scotland, otherwise I am sure it would all have gone more smoothly and rapidly.
- That was quite a process indeed. I'm happy that all worked out. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well of course it did! You are reasonable and co-operative! That makes all the difference. I couldn't just approve everything and still look like I was doing a good job, but all issues were minor imo, and you fixed them, and that enabled me to speak with some authority and knowledge - some weight as they say in philosophy - when I approved it. It was an excellent article from the get-go, so there wasn't really any doubt in my mind where we would end up. Hey, I am going to ask that question that we got stymied at for awhile. If I was wrong and put you through the wringer for nothing I will not only apologize, I will owe you one. I'll be back to let you know what they say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have been wringing my hands and checking every day, and just now I found the notice it has been promoted!! There's some kind of delay with the bot, but you got it! See - they did finish with me. It was enough with the others that no more was needed! You got it! I am so glad!! YAY!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I hope that the reason for the delay just is that the coordinators haven't had the time yet to take a final look at the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I did have good intentions, and I hoped that 'thorough' would carry enough weight to close it out. I went through that thing with a fine toothed comb! I can't believe you haven't gotten it yet. I want to complain but I know that won't help! For heaven's sakes, what more do they want? It has nothing but support. Aaarggh! I hope they don't leave you hanging for too long. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even with the best of intentions, reviews don't always go as smooth as one would hope for. Thanks for your thorough evaluation. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll bet you've changed your mind about that now!
I posted the question to Gog the Mild at [1]. I did my best to represent the disagreement fairly. He said rephrasing to idealists was OR in his opinion, and in my opinion, he is a WP god and an FA authority. Call upon me anytime you feel a need to be roasted over the coals for any reason. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for probing more deeply into this issue. I surely don't want to argue with a WP god and an FA authority on this particular case so I'll restrict myself to a more general observation. As I understand the linguistic level, a generic usage of "X-ists" and "the X-ist" is sometimes employed to describe the view of "X-ism" (and vice versa). This seems to be the case, for example, in [2] (first paragraph: materialism/materialists) and in [3] (lead section and the section "1. Dualism": dualism/dualists/the dualist). It may depend on the context whether generic reference is meant and it's possible that this was not the case for the disputed passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, I think it is context dependent. What you say makes sense, and I think there are cases where it's fine. At any rate, you cooperated even when you didn't agree, and that deserves upvoting all by itself.
Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, I think it is context dependent. What you say makes sense, and I think there are cases where it's fine. At any rate, you cooperated even when you didn't agree, and that deserves upvoting all by itself.
Is this one that you would be interested in working on? I think it would be fun to get it to GA, especially as it's one of those vital articles where you have to do the thing the article is about in order to successfully pass GAN. Remsense诉 07:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense: Thanks for the suggestion, it looks like an interesting candidate for a GA project. And the fact that "you have to do the thing the article is about" is definitely a plus. However, I'm currently busy as I just started working on the article Ontology. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Good_article_review_circle_logo.svg/60px-Good_article_review_circle_logo.svg.png)
Hello Phlsph7, I noticed you have an article listed at WP:GAN. I recently started a project, Good Article Review Circles, and thought you might be interested. This initiative helps articles get reviewed more quickly through collaborative efforts. By joining, you'll review others' articles and get your own reviewed in return. Check out the page for more details! — GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Relations (philosophy)
[edit]Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Relations (philosophy) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Relations (philosophy)
[edit]The article Relations (philosophy) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Relations (philosophy) for comments about the article, and Talk:Relations (philosophy)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
hello, please review my edits
[edit]Hello, please review these two edits about philosophy of science: 1. this one 2. this one
thanks, 5.234.36.210 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- i addede the unity of science to see also in theory of everything, and i added formal epistemology to formal logic section. 5.234.36.210 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, can you please use these two resources for editing wikipedia articles about unity of science and formal epistemology.
- 1. [4]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formal-epistemology/2. [5]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-unity/ 5.234.36.210 (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hello 5.234.36.210, these two sources are reliable and could be used. Your edit to the article "Logic" was reverted because formal logic has countless applications with formal epistemology being only one of them. The unity of science is somehow relevant to the theory of everything but they are not the same topics. To get faster responses to your questions, you could ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- YAY! Whoohoo! Congrats! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nice work on the FA Phlsph! 750h+ 03:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- based... jp×g🗯️ 18:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Metaphysics
[edit]On 21 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Metaphysics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a nihilist school of metaphysics contends that tables and chairs do not exist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Metaphysics. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Metaphysics), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Relation (philosophy)
[edit]On 27 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Relation (philosophy), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to some metaphysicians, there are no relations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Relations (philosophy). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Relation (philosophy)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Dunning-Kruger Effect
[edit]You removed the "controversy" section from the Dunning-Kruger effect page. The page now reads like there is no controversy about it at all. (As if the very fact that you removed it, didn't emphasize it?) Is this an accurate reflection on the body of knowledge surrounding it, objectively, or only so in your opinion? I leave this question for you to ponder and research, and to reconsider your contributions to the article to bring it more in line with reflecting the body of knowledge surrounding it. Dagelf (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for your comment and your contributions to the article Dunning–Kruger effect. I assume you are referring to text you added in March 2024, which I removed shortly afterwards. The reason was that the text "
mostly repeats information from the section "Explanations", mostly without proper sourcing
". If you feel that the section "Explanations" ignores major positions or disagreements, I would be happy to have a look the ignored sources and make adjustments if necessary. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 6 August 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 3
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ontology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Event.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Solid South article improvements for GA
[edit]I believe I added citations for every paragraph that was missing them, and changed the wording in the specific sentences you mentioned. Are there any other issues for Solid South that need improvement for it to merit being a Good Article, per Wikipedia:Good article criteria? JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @JohnAdams1800: Thanks for adding all the references, the sourcing looks much better now! If there are sources for the information in the two tables on the bottom, it might be good to add them before the renomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I added some additional content and citations to the Solid South article, including citations for the presidential and gubernatorial election results. I'm renominating it for GA, and believe it meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I hope it works out this time, I have my fingers crossed. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added some additional content and citations to the Solid South article, including citations for the presidential and gubernatorial election results. I'm renominating it for GA, and believe it meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
You're absolutely crazy for taking on the quality improvements on Existence, Philosophy, Communication, Logic, etc., but in the best way possible. I truly admire your work, and though it may be an understatement, I'd like to offer you this barnstar as a token of appreciation for your efforts. joeyquism (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
- @Joeyquism: Thanks a lot for the appreciation! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 27 September 2024, assuming it's promoted. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | |
story · music · places |
---|
Congratulations, and thank you today for Existence, introduced: "Existence is the state of having reality. Often contrasted with essence, it is a wide and fundamental concept associated with various tricky problems, such as the status of imaginary entities like Santa Claus." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
... and a third, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Applause!
[edit]When I saw today's front page I wondered if you were the author of the featured article, and lo, you are! I'm not the smallest use to you in reviews because my stolidly earthbound mind does not cope with abstract concepts, but I recognise talent and dedication when I see them, and I take my hat off to you. Tim riley talk 19:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I really appreciate your kind words! I found your comments on my nominations quite helpful, in spite of (or maybe because of) their earthbound perspective.
Phlsph7 (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Human history
[edit]The article Human history you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Human history and Talk:Human history/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Human history
[edit]The article Human history you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Human history for comments about the article, and Talk:Human history/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
For getting human history to GA. I think you're the only Wikipedian to have two VA1 GAs :) Cerebellum (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
Sorry I didn't help at the end! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Cerebellum: Thanks for the barnstar and for all the work you have poured into this article before and during the GA! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)