User talk:Gemtpm

Corresponding conditional merge into strict conditional
Hi, I have a few questions about your merge of corresponding conditional into strict conditional. What is the relationship between a corresponding conditional and a strict conditional? That is, why should they be in the same article? Are they both special types of a larger class of logical objects? Would it make more sense if corresponding conditional were merged into material conditional? --Beefyt (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Beefy. They should really ce grouped as 'conditionals' and then subdivided. There isa persistent confusion in WP between conditonals where the first part IMPLIES the second part, and conditionals where there is no such 'material implication'.

Gemtpm (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Climate Skepticism
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Climate Skepticism. 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 - Global warming controversy. 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 Global warming controversy - 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  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. MuffledThud (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that articles related to climate change are particularly sensitive at the moment
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Philosophical Investigations (wiki)
I have nominated Philosophical Investigations (wiki), 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 Articles for deletion/Philosophical Investigations (wiki). 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. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Climate Skepticism. 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. ''Repeatedly recreating a content fork is disruptive, and you may be blocked if you continue. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and articles are built through consensus and discussion with your fellow volunteers.'' - 2/0 (cont.) 15:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to have resumed your edit war at Climate Skepticism just now . Would you please self-revert as a matter of urgency, and continue arguing your case on the talk page with a view to finding consensus? --TS 18:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If the page is to be deleted, it should go through the deletion process. The redirect is not agreed, and no, I will not go along with it, for the reasons amply iindicated. If, as you say, you seek to be neutral on Climate Change matters now, take over removing the redirects for me, Tony! Gemtpm (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're new to Wikipedia and obviously cannot be expected to understand our ways. I'll make allowances for that. However I must ask you not to revert that article again, even if somebody recreates the redirect.  Your article has been challenged as a POV fork, and you must resolve this by discussion instead of trying to force your opinion on the article through by edit warring.  This is a basic minimum conduct requirement that we all have to accept. --TS 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I'll leave it to you. It is obvious that people wishing to suppress the sceptics view have indeed deleted/redirected every single attempt to indicate this vast and highly relevant literature. This is a seriouys failure on the part of WP. No one has offered any 'content points' for debate, and I don't suppose there are any to be had - these 'editors' are appearing quite clearly as part of a non-serious lobby pushing their personal beliefs. If you are more serious, then, as I say, you should remove the redirect and ensure that my page, and others in this area, are judged simply on their value as part of a neutral reference source. At present WP provides no guidance as to why a large group of people (and experts in the area) dispute AGW. Okay? Gemtpm (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Climate Skepticism. 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. ''This is a bright line 'rule', please don't revert again within 24 hours (and note 3 reverts every 24 hours is not an entitlement). You clearly don't have consensus for this.'' Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

General sanctions
Hi, I noticed you duplicated an article that you had created, which was subsequently redirected. I've repeated the redirection and suggest that it's counter-productive to repeatedly create such duplicates.

Also I notice that recently you've been making inflammatory statements on talk pages of articles in the topic of climate change:
 * 19:22, 17 October 2010: "I see this as attempting to rebalance the awful WC-led coverage fo this issue."

The initials WC clearly refer to an identifiable Wikipedia editor and constitute a personal attack on that person.

We've just had a very long and painstaking arbitration case that mainly addressed this kind of battleground editing. Please see the discretionary sanctions remedy here. You're encouraged to read it and follow it, because we all have to follow that remedy if we're to edit in the climate change topic. --TS 10:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Doomsday Machine (2012 book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclear energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=560281927 your edit] to Economics of nuclear power plants may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Doomsday Machine by Martin Cohen and Andrew McKillop  ) that what is often not appreciated in debates about the economics of nuclear power is that the

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gettier problem, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Chisholm and Martin Cohen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paradigm Shift: How Expert Opinions Keep Changing on Life, the Universe and Everything, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Cohen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The turtle on the stick from 101 Philosophy Problems.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The turtle on the stick from 101 Philosophy Problems.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)