User talk:Gregbard/Archive 1

Message
Hi: I say your invite to the Wikiproject Logic.

How/where could I edit 'Logic navigation' which appear as:

''

Please leave message for me on my discussion page --Philogo 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

KFMF
I see you changed KFMF from a redirect to a disambiguation page. Fine, but it needs to be done properly. See Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). There should be links for the items that have articles, and there should be text before the list. --Vossanova o&lt; 14:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chico
As an ex-Chicoan (who still has relatives there), I'm interested in your edits to the Chico article. Could you give us some references for the Famous Chicoans section? Pollock and Chapman, in particular, make no mention of Chico in their articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mary Anne Houx
A tag has been placed on Mary Anne Houx, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 03:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

re:Revert of Chico, Ca page
Sorry about that, your edit came up as vandalism when it clearly wasn't (the bit about the worlds largest yo-yo triggered "yo"). Sorry about undoing your work, it's back now. If you want to revert a page, go to the history and click one of the previous versions, then edit that page, see Help:Reverting. I will be more careful in the future. Thanks for telling me though. See you round, James086Talk 08:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

belayed welcome
It looks like you never got greeted by the Welcoming Committee so I thought I'd leave a few notes that might help you out. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~) ; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I noticed you've placed the minor tag on a lot of your recent edits. That's not a problem, but it doesn't really suit some of them, for example this edit. For more details on what constitutes a minor edit checkout Help:Minor edit. Vicarious 07:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

non-notable Chicoans
Responding to your comments (I put yours in quotes): This is interesting. I didn't ever think I would make it to Wikipedia and now that I have I don't understand a single word you are saying or where that "quote" came from - Grant Ermis
 * Rob Blair -- Tv news anchor. "He's only included because there is a wikipedia entry on him." If he is included in wikipedia, we might want to change his name somehow so it is no longer a redlink.
 * Tracy Chapman -- "Did live in Chico briefly, but I don't have any good verification." I didn't see any verification on this and didn't know that living somewhere for a little while makes a person "from" a place. In this case, I might be (if I were notable) from many places.
 * Munk One -- "Only included because there was a wikipedia entry on him at one time." I only deleted it as it seemed to be a hoax entry. Never heard of him myself and redlinked, as there is no article as of right now. Perhaps an article should be created?
 * Bernie Richter, "County Supervisor, State Senator. Notable for being a precipitating factor in the affirmative action issue. Other than that he's only notable on the state level." Perhaps you might consider creating an article about this person, as notability would most certainly be obvious if it were made. Otherwise, to a reader from elsewhere, Mr. Richter could be a made-up name on this article.
 * Big Poppa E, slam poet. "Why leave him in and even clarify the entry? I'd say Blair is a more notable Chicoan (i.e. not very)." Because he was not redlinked and the link to Chico was made clear in his article.
 * Grant Ermis, "Mr. Gay USA 2007 -- I would think a national office would qualify one as notable. I think we should revert this one." One citation for verification would solve this, if you don't want to create an article about Mr. Ermis. I didn't know he was a real person, as he was redlinked. --Kukini 06:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope the above responses made sense. You are doing great work on the Chico page! --Kukini 07:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Message posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Butseriouslyfolks 06:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion
 A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page. VegaDark 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category for discussion (deletion)
Hello...a category that you created a little while back is up for "discussion" (AKA deletion) ---> Category:Isms. Thought you might like to actually know about this before it is deleted without your knowledge (since you created it and all). I want to keep it because (1) eventually it'll be more like a huge glossary of -ism words rather than a category of related topics; and (2) categories are much better than the "-ism" lists that we have now, List of isms (very incomplete and in shambles) and List of philosophical isms (not too bad, but all or most of the "isms" in one place would be better). --Wassermann 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ism
I have no idea about "ism" category. I looked strange to me and I removed it. I will not however remove it again. Cheers, --Aminz 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

List of isms
Since our well-fought for categories have now been largely overrun and will soon be deleted by the hostile admin-elite, I'm just going to spend some time building up the List of isms page since we "aren't allowed" to have a category to contain all of the -isms. Feel free to help out if you have some spare time one of these days. --Wassermann 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just ran across the discussions on category deletions of isms and belief systems. It is rather astonishing that so many straw man arguments are thrown up by avowedly clear-thinking people. Perhaps it would help to take the redirect from belief systems to religion and turn it into an article.  --Blainster 09:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Taxi.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Taxi.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent move/redirect of Pioneer Day
I've raised some concerns about your recent move of this article that I'd like to see discussed on Talk:Pioneer Day. Thanks. BRMo 02:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Hooker_Oak.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Hooker_Oak.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 05:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Johnston Diagram Not If a Then b.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Johnston Diagram Not If a Then b.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Logic template
Consensus in the math WikiProject is strongly against nav templates. I can't see any purpose for this one at all; there doesn't seem to be any content to it. Do you want to explain what you had in mind with it? --Trovatore 04:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I found the "show" button. Fairly slick, I have to admit, but I'm not sure it's enough to overcome the strong position against nav templates. A curiosity: Why do you have "sets" under "first-order logic" but "type theory" under "second-order logic"? That doesn't make much sense to me; sets as modernly conceived are basically just like types except that you can mix different levels (which then allows you to iterate further; it's hard to see how you can push types past a limit ordinal without allowing mixing). --Trovatore 04:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

7625597484987
A "" template has been added to the article 7625597484987, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DavidCBryant 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Style note
Hi Greg. Just a small note. On Wikipedia one should write

== External links ==

instead of

== External Links ==

and in general, use lowercase instead of upper case everywhere except in proper names and first letter of a sentence. That's a small thing, but I thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Predicate Logic
Hi! I noticed that you are suggesting a merger of the article on predicate logic with the article on first-order logic. When I first edited the article on predicate logic, i wanted the article to referred to logics that use predicates in general. First order logic is just one such predicate logic. Other such logics are higher-logic and inifitary logic and typed logic. In this way, predicate logic is the genus and first order logic is a species. I am cognizant that in typical informal math logic usage, predicate logic is indeed just taken to be its most famous species -- first order logic.

Instead of a merger, I think what would be better is to classify predicate logic as a stub and expand it, talking about the other species in greater detail, so that it the reader is able to understand this distinction between predicate logic and first order logic.

Notice that the article Predicate (logic) is also a stub, so just referring the reader to Predicate (logic) does not help. If you think a merger is needed, i think a merger of predicate logic and predicate is more suitable. Please tell me what you think. --DesolateReality 13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

One more style note
In math notation variables should be italicized, so


 * f(a1, ..., an) ≤ f(b1, ... , bn)

should be used instead of


 * f(a1, ..., an) ≤ f(b1, ... , bn).

Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Logic-stub
Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?  06:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories
Hey Greg, can you head on over to WT:WPM and explain/discuss your recent reverts on various logic related categories. Thanks and cheers --Cronholm144 13:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Logic
Hope this helps, I can modify it if you want.--Cronholm144 05:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes this looks much better. The one I came up with was crap. Thank you.Gregbard 05:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Noncont.gif
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Noncont.gif, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Noncont.gif fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: no links - replaced To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Noncont.gif, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot and Logic
Sure, Gregbard! I'd be glad to help with that!

For projects like this, the best way to go is for you (and WP:WPLOG) to come up with a list of categories that fall entirely (or at least 80%) under the project's scope. For instance, WP Alabama came up with their list (though yours doesn't have to have the alpha headings if you don't want). All of those categories are fully within their project scope.

In case you're wondering, I don't let the bot just start with a category and follow sub-categories. There's too much chance of it running amok with something that's either mis-categorized or doesn't make sense. For instance, when running through WP:Chicago's categories, you'll find Category:Chicago railroads, which then has the subcat Category:Penn Central Transportation, which then sends you to Category:New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, and suddenly you're in a whole different part of the country :)

You might want to start with Special:CategoryTree and work from that.

Let me know when you have a list of cats ready and I'll be glad to sic the bot on them.

Thanks! SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good news ...
Assessment works... -- Prove It (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Category:WikiProject Logic isn't supposed to be a subcat of Category:Logic. The reason has to do with the fact the projects aren't part of encyclopedic content; they aren't propagated to mirrors, and can't be included on CD or printed versions. -- Prove It (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Invite
Hello, Gregbard! Thanks for stopping by. I've been quite dormant here on Wiki, but in the past I was actually one of those who proposed the creation of such a project, and am delighted to see that it came to be. My old username was "Porcher" and was added to the charter-members list, so I updated it. Keep up the good work. --Kripkenstein 22:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-project: Logic
Dear Gregbard, thanks for notifying me, however I prefer to post mathematical content at PlanetMath where I can receive corrections for my entries, and I can be sure that the users are working mathematicians. Due to recent malicious actions by some users here I decided not to contribute to Wikipedia, because I don't want to be involved in edit wars, reverts and futile discussions with many oersonal offences. Only IF Wikipedia policy incorporates some rules for defence of users with revealed identity against malicious actions of anonymous users I will reconsider my position. However if you are involved in the logic project you can still copy text from my PlanetMath entries, they are licensed under GFDL and I will be glad to answer any questions via e-mail. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gregbard. I've taken note of your proposal at WikiProject Logic/Logical Operators and would like to offer my support and assistance in any way that I can. --Peter Farago 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Senator Theatre (Chico, California), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cmprince 03:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I would think that that information would qualify it as notable (though others might disagree with that). When creating a stub, it's a good idea to make sure you include the notability criteria in the first edit. Otherwise it gets caught up by those of us doing cleanup. There's a lot of truly unnotable articles, like ones for local malls, that are added all the time, and we try to discourage that by removing them quickly. Cmprince 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage (commentator)
Thank you for your help/clean up. I should probably give you a barnstar but I am to lazy to choose the right one. Regardless, I am grateful. Ursasapien (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Very unique, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 01:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation.
Greg, Thanks for inviting me to participate in the logic project. (Almost rhymes.) I'll consider joining when I have more time to fully participate. Until then, I'll see you in the stacks. --Loqi T. 19:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me. I will try to do my best - I saw some weak spots in modal logic. When I have time I will get right on it. --RickardV 11:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Greg, happy to help as appropriate. --Vaughan Pratt 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Logic stub
Hi Greg - looks like both stubs have been kept (for now at least) - whoever closed the SFD probably decided it was a "no consensus". It may be worth monitoring later to make sure they're both being used properly and frequently, but for now they seem fine. Grutness...wha?  00:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - it's good to see someone else dislikes the phrase "very unique" as much as I do (and also "most perfect/circular/correct"). Grutness...wha? 

List of isms/new articles
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of isms/new articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of isms/new articles fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: moved To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of isms/new articles, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Subjective logic
I have tagged this article, as noted on the talk page and the creator's talk page. Bearian 01:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Turning's halting theorem
Did you mean Turing? If so, Halting problem is probably a better redirect destination than Entscheindungsproblem. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that a subtle pun? An extra n in the second syllable of both redirect and target? --Trovatore 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The link is Turning's halting theorem. The German misspelling is my fault. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I have fixed the redirect. I don't have that userbox that says "I reserve the right to screw up my edits...." however,... Gregbard 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

PROD (2)
Both non-notable formal languages; the only possible point of interest is the separate rules for well-foundedness and for "validity". &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

FS (logic)
A template has been added to the article FS (logic), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

PQ (logic), FS (logic)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics for my suggestion as to where these might be merged to. As there are at least two articles in question, I think that's a better location for the discussion than the individual talk pages or our user talk pages. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts
Dear Greg,

I couldn't help noticing that you are having some arguments with people like User:Arthur Rubin, User:CBM and User:Trovatore. I have been here for several years and I have found there users very pleasurable to work with, even though we do not always agree. Furthermore, I'm afraid that some of your comments do seem to be unnecessarily polemical; calling people thick never helps. I'd like to suggest that you try to find some common ground and that you consider compromising. After all, on this website one user does not have the power to go against the wishes of a group of editors; his only chance is to convince the others. If convincing does not work (and usually after a couple of posts the position are so ingrained that it is nigh impossible to change them), another de-escalating strategy is to get more people involved. That's why CBM posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics; other obvious places are pages associated with WikiProject Philosophy and of course Logic.

Most important though is not to take it too serious. Always keep in mind that the important thing here is the articles. WikiProjects, pages for requested articles, and all that, are only tools to reach our goal of writing articles, so we shouldn't spend too much energy on them. And rows detract from the joy and pleasure of explaining what we love.

I hope you'll find my advice useful and not too patronizing.

Best wishes, Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I am alway very open to criticism, however, I think too much sometimes. I have made point after point with these people and after how many times do I get to call a thick person a thick person? Well the diplomatic answer is never I guess. My problem is that I can't be phoney. It doesn't seem that I can convince any of these people of anything they haven't dug into. They have a cabal going on hardcore. It's hurting the whole wikipedia.


 * No, you are absolutely correct. I have been very "populist" about the whole thing: inviting people into the project without regard to ideology, posting notices of discussions, etc. However, that only works on many issues, not all. Recently I put out a call on WikiProject Philosophy. The only way to deal with bullies is to out number them. The whole thing seems distasteful: gathering up a posse on the wikipedia...I'm an eventualist, so your words find welcome. They just pissed me off all day today. Be well, and thank you. Gregbard 14:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another reference to look at
Another nice reference you may be interested in is the introduction to Mathematical Logic by J. Donald Monk (amazon.com). If you don't have access to a copy of the book, I would be glad to scan the introduction and email it to you. It begins, Leafing through almost any exposition of modern mathematical logic, including this book, one will note the highly technical and purely mathematical nature of most of the material. Generally speaking this may seem strange to the novice, who pictures logic as forming the foundation of mathematics and expects to find many difficult discussions concerning the philosophy of mathematics. ... He continues on p. 4: Now from the point of view of these brief comments on the nature of mathematics let us return to the problem of justifying our purely technical approach to logic. First of all, we do want to consider logic as a branch of mathematics, and subject the branch to as severe and searching an analysis of as the other branches. ... (Here I read the word "logic" to mean "mathematical logic" rather than "philosophical logic.) I think that Monk's introduction may shed some light the positions that you have encountered among mathematical logicians here. I don't aim to convince you to adopt these positions, but you should be aware that they are not mere oversights among a few people at wikipedia.

On another note, I do think that our articles should include philosophical results; for example the article on the incompleteness theorem includes some, and could use more.

I still don't understand the difference between "proof" and "derivation" that you maintain - could you point me to a reference work that follows this distinction, or explains it? The logic book by Mates seems to use the words synonymously when referring to formal derivations. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of Richard B. Parker
Hi Greg. Can you please explain this edit? Paul August &#9742; 16:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, it looks like what happened is he tried to change the redirect into a disambig page, which would make sense except that there was only one bluelink in the list. If this logician Richard Parker is genuinely notable, then it might make sense to write at least a stub about him and proceed from there. A disambig page would be correct if the two Parkers are similarly likely search terms or link targets; otherwise a redirect link at the top of the more notable one. --Trovatore 17:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Paul August &#9742; 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to get around to expanding a lot of articles, but I can't exactly go at my own pace with people riding my ass. These guys are all pissed off at me so I guess it will be like this from now on. Not good for the wikipedia. Yes, I will get around to expanding the parker article at some point, but since anything less than perfection will be torn up, there is no point right this moment. Be well, Gregbard 23:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Little context in List of isms/New articles
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of isms/New articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of isms/New articles is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of isms/New articles, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Understanding
You say "The system has no purpose outside the context of Hofstadter's book." That's a pretty non-intellectual understanding of the book GEB, the system PQ (logic), and the wikipedia. Do you know what it means for one statement to be a "syntactic consequence" of another? Because FS, and PQ are pretty useful in elucidating that concept. Gregbard 11:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Greg, I quoted this on the talk page: "The formal system of this Chapter is called the pq-system. It is not important to mathematicians or logicians-- in fact, it is just a simple invention of mine. Its importance lies only in the fact that it provides an excellent example of many ideas that play a large role in this book." That's what Hofstadter says before he introduces the system.  I was just attempting to clarify that in the introductory paragraph so people who read the article understood that it was not a joke. --JayHenry 12:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the simple analysis is not the correct one. On the face of it, it may seem like a good definitive statement from the author. I would chalk it up to a poor choice of words. There were some redlinks in the articles in question that would be a good start at a bottom up approach to filling out gaps in WikiProject Logic. Now I'll not only have to rethink how I will continue, but if continuing will be possible. Gregbard 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Note on editing
Hi Greg. I've seen you around the math wikiproject. I have a few notes about editing. First, when you want to add to a section, you can edit that section only, not the whole page, and leave the section name in the edit summary, so that we know what you are referring two.

Second, a minor edit is a tiny edit, edits which are not minor should not have the "minor edit" button checked. And thirdly, and most importantly, you should provide an edit summary with your edits, so that we understand why you change something.

I hope this is useful. You can reply here. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Logic
Hi, Gregbard! SatyrBot has (finally) finished WP:Illinois tagging, so I've set it up to run the Logic2 banners tonight. Sorry for the delay! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been watching the progress of the Illinois project in your "user contributions" link. Did you know that Illinois has more municipalities than any other state? I know now! Anyway, I was actually fascinated to see a page that I put in a Chicago category get tagged (Climax Blues Band). I was a little worried when I saw some Alabama stuff, but I figured it was clean up work. Anyway, THANK YOU for this service. You are wonderful. Be well, Gregbard 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So I guess Category:Formal languages might not have been appropriate for tagging :) Would you mind reviewing that category for any mis-placed logic banners?  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gregbard! I've gotten quite a few comments from last nights run that make me uneasy.  I'm going to stop the bot from running the remaining 78 categories tonight.  Do you think you could chat with Mikka and Zvika and come back to me when things get straightened out?  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gregbard. I'm sorry you feel like WP:Logic is being "held hostage".  Consensus  sometimes does feel that way, doesn't it?
 * In my experience so far, projects do seem to act territorial about what articles "belong" in the project and what articles don't.
 * On the plus side, there are over 1,000 articles already tagged. And when the discussion is done, you may have more members from the other projects who are interested in staying on. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Len Tillem
FYI: I've deleted the article Len Tillem because no indication has been given that he meets the relevant notability guideline. In particular, I very much doubt that there is sufficient reliable third-party coverage to build an article on. Pascal.Tesson 04:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning
It seems appropriate for Reasoning to have a Cat:Philosophy of some appropriate kind. I see you don't agree that reasoning is a branch of philosophy. Any suggestions as to what would be appropriate? Something that could also fit rationality, and practical and theoretical reasoning would be good. Anarchia 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be under logic or philosophy at least. Those guys in WikiProject Math are wreaking havoc on the whole logic area. Gregbard 00:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

TERRIBLE
gregbard -- terrible editor gregbard - a terrible terrible incorrect editor jeez! ≈  Maurauth  ( Ravenor ) 16:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * at least I'm not a "very unique" editor Gregbard 22:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Metaphysics Portal
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Metaphysics Portal, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Metaphysics Portal is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Metaphysics Portal, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I dint get your deletion nomination. I saw your contributions to project. Also notice my edits to Template:Aesthetics, you may revert if you dint like that. Lara_bran 08:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No feel free. My goal was making it as small as possible. Others didn't like the color. So I think it may change some more. Gregbard 08:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats fine. Can i move List of topics in philosophical aesthetics to List of topics in aesthetics, im little confused/unknowledged here. Lara_bran 08:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You could move that just fine with me. The only concern I have is that the wikiproject aesthetics has a link to recent changes (...to that page.) If you move it, you should change any links too. I think you know how to use the "what links here!" Be well, Gregbard 08:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Im not much into formal philosophy or its other branches. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Banner
A neat solution, but you identify the problem with it. It would be equally valid to make Logic a field within the banner for the mathematics project. I've sometimes wondered if the templates woudl be better reduced to the size of user boxes, and lined up down the right hand side of the talk page. After all, all they need contain is a link to the project and the various rating numbers. Just a thought. Banno 03:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The math project already has foundations as a field. This includes logic. However, this precludes the philosophy people from easy access to all the tools. I think at some point in the future Wikipedia will create a new category of page for all these tags. They will be systematically removed from all talk pages and be put some where else. Gregbard 03:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the mean time, I will support your suggestion. Banno 03:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

aesthetics navigation template
I have created template:aesthetics similar to phylosophy navigation. I derived from Template:sex, and have put "under construction" banner in noincludes. Give a look, and help would be appreciated. Lara_bran 10:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you have checked "mark all edits as minor" in your "preferences". It is little misleading. Hope you correct it. Nice day. Lara_bran 08:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You should give at least one source, so that we can crosscheck or research more. Are these principles related to "aesthetic universals"? I did only style changes to that article, no content add or removal. I am not into formal theory. One thing you can do is search google for web sources or cite the book name where you have taken from. That should be enough. Thanks. Lara_bran 11:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Logic Redux
Hi, Gregbard! I'll get started on the removal of the banner from the indicated categories. Re: the philosophy|field=logic banner, that's up to the WikiProject. IMHO, if "Logic" is a sub-project of "Philosophy", then that's definitely the way to go. But I could see some possible opposition from WP:WPM... Best check with both projects and see what consensus is. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

edit summaries
Thanks for all your contributions. It would be very helpful if you would use edit summaries so that other editors can see at a glance the gist of what you've done. Thanks. - Special-T 19:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Sat-chico.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Sat-chico.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VegitaU 19:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!


WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. -WarthogDemon 03:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles on negations of definitions
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. Also, although I didn't mention this there, the definitions you give in these articles do not seem to be the negations of the corresponding definitions. For example, since the defintions of symmetric, reflexive, and transitive relations are purely universal, their negations should be purely existential. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A collection of note cards that you have taken, while a useful resource, isn't a reliable source for wikipedia purposes. In particular, without a reference to an actual published source, we lose the context of the definition as well as the ability to tell if the definition is common or uncommon. In a pinch, it's possible to use google books to find print citations for many terms. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Carl, I think you are a little caught up in the academic rigor to see the value in having the information out there for others to research. Hey listen, I'm a cab driver. If you want to box me out of wikipedia completely, you won't have a hard time doing it. I don't see any information on these topics. That's why we are all better off with them there rather than absent. If you take the hard core approach, we get what we have at the logical operators. No one will get a chance to research further because you think this is Oxford press or something. It's a publicly editable encyclopedia. Tag it as uncertain if that makes you feel better. That is a fine way to deal with it. Deletionism will prove to be the biggest regret of wikipedia in the long term. Someone should set up a junk file just for deleted wikipedia entries. It's a very non-intellectual way to deal with this medium.

Personally, my highest value is formulated this way: To preserve and further intellectual values is the highest priority.

I'm not the best person to be doing these contributions, to be sure. However they were all absent until I put them there so all the great experts with great sources aren't really worth anything at all as far as these topics are concerned are they?

I will always try to provide sources if I can (doxastic logic), however I will not (and realistically cannot) be held hostage to tracking all this information down again. There are better experts than me for that. The google books is a good tip. Be well,

Gregbard 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As you created the articles and/or redirects, you are responsible for tracking the references down, or it should be summarily deleted. (Or at least lock-PRODded, with the modficiation that you are not allowed to deleted the PROD.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

reply to your comment about the WQA report
Hi - It's been a whole month since I review that report, so I don't recall the details. Unfortunately, I don't have time to review it again, so I have re-edited my comment in the archive at the link you sent me to clarify.

I crossed out most of what I wrote and added a note that I am not able to review this further, and that no judgement was intended. I apologize if I misread something and gave anyone the wrong idea.

Regarding the difficulties on math articles that you mentioned, the only solution I can think of is to use WP:RFC and post messages at mathematics projects and talk pages, to invite more editors to contribute to the debates where you feel there is a problem. More interested editors can often help to release a logjam and help create better consensus.

Hope that helps, it's all I can do for now. --Parsifal Hello 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

grossly incorrect

 * The nontransitive relation is defined as:
 * ( x ) ( y ) ( z ) ( ( Rxy 🇦🇩 Ryz )(x )(z )~Rxz )
 * ( x ) ( y ) ( z ) ( ( Rxy 🇦🇩 Ryz )(x )(z )~Rxz )

The above is not just badly written; it's horribly incorrect. It says if x is related to y and y to z, then there is some other object, which we will call z (not the same thing as way called "z" after the preceeding word "if") such that x is not related to z. It also say "the" nontransitive relation instead of "an" intransitive relation. The correct definition would say that a (not the!) relation R is nontransitive if there exist x, y, and z such that x is related to y and y to z but x is not related to z.

I've redirected to an article that's existed for a long time.

Your recent newly created articles neglect provisions of Manual of Style that exist for very good reasons and you'd be well advised to learn them. You clearly don't understand the mathematics in the article you wrote that I quoted from. Michael Hardy 03:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see you're distinguishing between "nontransitive" and "intransitive", but you've still got the definitions really badly wrong. See my comments at talk:nontransitive relation. Michael Hardy 03:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect Michael, you are incorrect. For all x, y, and z it is true that if x has the relation to y and y has the relation to z then there exists an x and a z for which it is not true that they hold the relation, then they have a nontransitive relation. That is exactly what the formula says. (refactor) Gregbard 06:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you're very very confused. To say that it is not transitive means that there exist x, y, and z such that x is related to y and y is related to z and x is not related to z.
 * The condition you state is true of many transitive relations! Simple example: the positive integers 1, 2, 3, ... in their usual order.  That usual order is transitive.  Now observe: 2 is less than 3, and three is less than 4 and it is also true that there exist an x and a z for which it is not true that x is less than z (since, for example, 10 is not less than 9).  So your definition is the usual order on the positive integers is "nontransitive", but in fact it is transitive.  Look, I'm willing to tutor you in this topic for $100 per hour.  Send me an email and I'll reply with my phone number. Michael Hardy 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Extendability is a mathematical relation in which:
 * (x$$\in$$X)(y$$\in$$X)(x)(y)(Rxy)
 * (x$$\in$$X)(y$$\in$$X)(x)(y)(Rxy)

Look: It looks as if you're trying to say that a relation R is extendable precisely if that condition holds. But that's not what you've said. You've said, not that extendability is that property of relations, but rather that extendability is such a relation. Your very badly confused and should stop creating these stubs until you understand both the math involved and the conventions of Wikipedia, which frown upon (among other things) articles that lack appropriate initial context-setting. Michael Hardy 03:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is categorized, so there is enough context to work with. Gregbard 06:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Relations
Regarding this edit,  many of those terms could simply be included in the article Relation, if thre was demand to do so. It isn't clear to me that all of them are notable enough to need an article. For example I searched for "weakly dense relation" on google and google books but got no results at all. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to know more about all of them. Any form of redirect or integration at some point down the road would be nice. I don't agree with your notion of notability. I'm not completely against using some form of notability criterion, however we have gone way too far in one direction. They aren't running out of disk space. It's more intellectual to preserve as many entries as reasonably possible. If I'm interested in these subjects, I suppose there are many others as well.


 * P.S. that edit points to something trovatore said about mos. Is that the one you had in mind? Be well,

Gregbard 13:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The link was just my error. Here's the right one . I left a longish note at Talk:Intransitivity, by the way.
 * Certainly we can't expect all math definitions to be famous among the general public. But we can require that the ideas we present are actually known and used by a decent number of people in that particular area. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with this. That is holding the Wikipedia hostage to the impressions of the self selecting contributors. That is a nonintellectual view of our purpose here. Furthermore, there is no need for such a policy at Wikipedia for lack of disk space. There are clearly reasonable cases and clearly unreasonable cases. I believe all the topics I listed are more than reasonably encyclopedic. They deserve mention somewhere perhaps on a single integrated page. Be well, Gregbard 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

message
Template: Logic2 now reads "This article is within the scope of the WikiProject: Philosophy," instead of WikiProject Logic Reason?--Philogo 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You kindly answered on my talk page and I have replied to your reply on my talk page. --Philogo 11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I have continued our disussion on my talk page.--Philogo 12:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Message for you at User talk:Philogo under "banner"--Philogo 20:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

negating quantifiers
If a proposition begins by saying


 * $$ \forall x\,\cdots $$

then its negation is


 * $$ \text{not }\forall x\, \cdots $$

and that is equivalent to


 * $$ \exists x\,\text{not }\cdots.

$$

If a proposition begins by saying


 * $$ \exists x\,\cdots $$

then its negation is


 * $$ \text{not }\exists x\, \cdots $$

and that is equivalent to


 * $$ \forall x\,\text{not }\cdots.

$$

Transitivity of a relation R says


 * $$ \forall x\,\forall y\,\forall z (xRy\text{ and }yRz \implies xRz).\, $$

That R is NOT transitive is therefore


 * $$ \exists x\,\exists y\,\exists z\,\text{not } (xRy\text{ and }yRz \implies xRz).\,$$

Now recall that


 * $$ \text{not }(A \implies B) \, $$

is equivalent to


 * $$ A \text{ and not }B, $$

so lack of transitivity becomes


 * $$ \exists x\,\exists y\,\exists z\,(xRy \text{ and }yRz\text{ and not }xRz).\,$$

In other words, to deny a statement that begins with "for all...", you assert the existence of a counterexample. That is what a definition of "not transitive" should say. Michael Hardy 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is true. If you put a in front of three universal quantifiers, the result in proper form will have three existential quantifiers. However, you don't have to completely negate something to make it "not" what it was before. All you have to do is have one case that screws it up. That only requires the participation of two variables. This formulation you have derived may be called strongly nontransitive, or very nontransitive. I'm going to trust my notes on this one. If you are wrong I guess that means you need to stop contributing to the Wikipedia doesn't it? Be well, Gregbard 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Asserting that there is a least one case where something fails is exactly the same as putting a negation sign at the front; there's no difference. I have remarked at talk:intransitivity that the definition you proposed is not any kind of intransitivity, since it is satisfied by transitive relations. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting a in front of something isn't the end all be all for these concepts. We have irr-, -a, non-, anti-, quasi-, etc. So unless some can demonstrate a set for which it is true that


 * (x)(y)(z)(Rxy🇦🇩RyzRxz)


 * and


 * (x)(y)(z)(Rxy🇦🇩Ryz (x)(z(Rxz)


 * All the behavior of y in the world won't make it so.


 * I'm going to go out on a limb and say that not only is the formula I gave for nontransitivity correct, but that it is the most general form of nontransitivity. Whereas the forms presented by yourself and Hardy may be called "strictly nontransitive" or something of that flavor. If I'm incorrect, I will be more than conciliatory. However, if I am correct, you have given hell to a cab driver who has bested you at your own field. Such are the risks of Wikipedia. I would be interested in any results you produce. Be well, Gregbard 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The set is {0,1,a,b} with the relations 0Ra, 0Rb, 0R1, aR1, bR1, and no other relations. This can be symbolized by a diamond (below) where xRy if and only if y is on a higher line than x. On the one hand, this is a partial order relation, so transitive, and the first formula above holds.  On the other hand, there are two elements (a and b) such that $$\lnot aRb$$, so the right hand side of the implication in your second formula is satisfied, which means the implication can never be false, and thus the second formula above also holds. I said this on [talk:intransitivity]] where you claimed to understand what I was saying. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

1 / \ a  b \ / 0


 * (ec, replying to Gregbard )
 * Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. This is a mathematical logic concept, and I claim expertise.  If you shuffle the quantifiers to read
 * (y) [(x)(z)Rxy 🇦🇩 Ryz (x)(z) Rxy🇦🇩Ryz🇦🇩(Rxz)]
 * it might make sense, but you'd still need a reference which meets WP:ATT or WP:RS (depending on which is the policy today), that this is used. Your notes would only be adequate if you are a WP:RS.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy template
The existing categories didn't all match the criteria included in the template. Right now I'm in the process of updating the project directory, and probably will be doing that for an hour or two. Then I'll work to ensure that the categories which are filled by the banner exist, and turn any of the others into redirects to those categories. John Carter 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Culture in Chico
An article that you have been involved in editing, Culture in Chico, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 01:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetics project
I will support bot usage. Since we are not making seperate project, just a taskforce it would be less maintainance and more output. You leave a note to me or in aesthetics taskforce noticeboard(is in my watchlist) when you request for bot. Lara_bran 05:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Using the bot sounds fine to me. The one question that might arise is all the subcategories. So far, I've only really tagged those articles which, one way or another, fall either directly in the main category of each subproject or appear on a list in that main category. Many of the subcats might be somewhat problematic. The entire Category:Art movements, for instance, falls within the Category:Aesthetics. It might be useful to review the categorization and see if any of the subcats can be moved, or maybe to only tag those articles which directly relate to a given subproject. This is unfortunately a fairly common problem for all projects. The alternative is to tag them all initially, and then have someone review the tagging and remove those which don't seem to apply. That works too. Unfortunately, I don't count myself familiar enough with all the subjects to be able to have a really good opinion one way or another. John Carter 13:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The bot only tags an entire category, but not its subcategories. There will still be some time to review the categories. Thanks for the support Gregbard 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Category need not always be a tree. An article maybe in 2 categories of same tree. So keep 2 cats for an article. Lara_bran 03:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wittgenstein CFD
For your future reference, please note, from the CFD notice: Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. Otto4711 14:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If people propose deletions like this, can all the Wikiproject people agree to post them on the project talk page or could we have a CfD philosophy page? I would have hated the cat to be deleted without getting to have my say! Anarchia 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * People can't debate a moving target! For obvious reasons, having two open debates on the same category is not allowed, nor is preempting and confusing the debate by emptying and effectively moving the category whilst the debate is still in progress. Johnbod 23:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Belief systems
Greg, dude, come on, nothing should be in that template that would not belong in the List of belief systems, right? I vented some on the talk page, but it makes no sense to divide things up in the template in a way that they wouldn't be divided up in the article.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wittgenstein
I have again reverted the changes you made. Do not empty the category while it is being discussed at CfD. If you choose to empty the category again, you will be blocked for vandalism. --Kbdank71 04:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well, I am not a trouble maker. Those edits were in good faith you should understand. I find it hard to take that the process of making improvements has to come to a halt because of this deletion proposal. Furthermore, the case for deletion is stronger for a less-improved version, than an improved version of anything. So therefore, the revert only serves the agenda of trying to impose this eponymous cat policy. You really are making extra work for some good editors.


 * I am not always the most diplomatic, so I apologize for coming on strong, etc. I think Banno's statement on the issue best captures the case we are all trying to make. I think there will still be a natural tendency to recreate this category by others if, for instance, you succeed in deleting it, and for instance I, Anarchia, Banno, Burdian all each get hit by a bus soon thereafter. Philosophy is taught by studying the philosophers. So this organization will be a natural way to organize this material for most of the people who will be making good contributions. I think you should reconsider your position. Anarchia has been working on tightening up the categories for a while now. You will notice that there is not a proliferation of eponymous categories under philosophy. The ones we have are all appropriate.


 * I (and Anarchia for sure) agree with the idea of avoiding overcategorizing things. However, the choice of prohibiting eponymous categories does not appear to stand out as an important tactic in this goal. I think the Wikiproject history should be responsible for category George Washington and WP:PHILO should be responsible for category:wittgenstein.


 * Be well and thanks for your work. Gregbard 05:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not continue to disrupt Wikipedia
Non-administrators closing discussions limits non-admin closures of discussions in which they have not offered an opinion or for a category that they edited heavily. Non admins specifically have been requested not to close CfD discussions. You not only offered multiple opinions in that ongoing CfD but accounted for half the edits to that category. You clearly had a conflict of interest and should not have closed that category. In addition to your improper close of that category, you unilaterally move the category during the active discussion at CFD. Please review WP:OWN. You additionally listed the category for speedy deletion during the active discussion at CFD becuse you decided to move it. Please review WP:SPEEDY. Your actions were disruptive. Please do not continue to disrupt Wikipedia. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, the rules as far as I know them are:
 * After 5 days the discussion may be closed.
 * WP is not a bureaucracy.
 * The issue didn't have a snowball's chance in the first place.
 * The result was posted with respect to the obviously prevailing view.


 * Hey listen, I am not playing games here at WP.


 * That insurmountably prevailing view on the issue had established itself several days before I closed the discussion APPROPRIATELY. I also know that the "administrative" types involved were taking actions AGAINST the prevailing view, in closing the second discussion. I was seriously concerned that it would close with a different conclusion.


 * The move that occurred during the discussion is exactly where the material has ended up after the discussion, APPROPRIATELY. Furthermore, the case for deletion is always stronger for a less-improved version, than an improved version of anything. So therefore, the foolish revert only served the agenda of trying to impose the eponymous cat policy, NOT IMPROVING THE WP. My move consisted in an improvement, and it (and all of my actions) came with appropriate notice.


 * Proposing to delete categories on which people are working is DISRUPTIVE. Halting the improvement of articles, in order to undergo an obviously futile administrative process, is DISRUPTIVE. As further evidence of my good citizenship here, I have proposed to amend the policy which was originally foolishly applied. We are here for the content, not the bureaucracy.


 * I have read the policy you cite in warning me WP:DPR. It appears that I have acted substantially IN ACCORDANCE WITH IT. Furthermore, the policy that requests for non-admins to not close CfD discussions appears to do so because of technical limitations that DO NOT APPLY in this case.


 * You have cited WP:OWN, a policy of which I am thoroughly aware. You cite no actual REASON for citing it. Please explain this accusation or rescind it please. Your giving me this inappropriate warning implies to me that perhaps YOU have some ownership issues. You can't handle an non-administrative close with plenty of notice, and a slam dunk conclusion?


 * Your notice to me consists entirely in bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. My actions were obviously in good faith, nonharmful, and NON DISRUPTIVE of any meaningful contributions to WP.


 * I realize that your communication to me is meant in a good spirit, and that this TYPE of warning is necessary on occasion. However, in this case it is NOT appropriate. Please remove your accusation. I will continue to edit Wikipedia in a respectful manner. Be well, Greg Bard 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jreferee is right I'm afraid. Your procedural high-jinks around the debate did nothing to help your side of the argument which, as you occasionally recognised through the red mist, I share. Johnbod 23:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No he is not. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Talk about misty vision. My goodness. Greg Bard 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. There is a clear reason why somebody with a vested interest cannot close discussions and why they should instead wait for a neutral party to close the discussion.
 * WP:DPR states that "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well." It's a mystery to me how you can say that you acted "substantially IN ACCORDANCE WITH IT". The same rules goes for administrators by the way: Deletion guidelines for administrators says "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."
 * Greg, you have been warned in various occasions that you edit too boldly without sufficient regard for process or consensus. You may think that you should have a right to do so, but all the warnings show that other people do not agree with it. You should take that into account. The whole thing would have been much more smoothly with exactly same result if you had just been a bit more patient and let for instance somebody else close the discussion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of this guideline for waiting until someone not involved with the discussion closes it. I thought otto might close it, and possibly go against the consensus. (As had happened with the speedily closed discussion on Cat:LW) If I had known that no one in the conversation would close it, I wouldn't have felt the need to. The speedy close of discussion, and revert of Cat:LW made me think we were going to get steamrolled out of a category. Greg Bard 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetics Categories
I am not going to continue this tonight, but you should read the categorization guidelines, and also think about what is actually useful. Otherwise tomorrow may well be as horrible as today. Johnbod 04:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy of technology
Hi Gregbard. I noticed you created this category. Currently looking a bit thin. I moved a couple of philosophers out of the category (because they are already in Category:Philosophers of technology. I suspect that some of the articles in Category:History of technology or Category:Science and technology studies or Category:Technology in society should be here as well or instead. --RichardVeryard 09:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Logic participants roster (copied from here)
The logic participants roster was moved to WikiProject Philosophy/Logic/participants. If the page history can be moved along with it, that would be wonderful. This is consistent with the rest of the philosophy task forces. Be well, Greg Bard 20:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You copied the page. You did not move the page. The effect is to give you credit in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Logic/participants]] page history for making posts that you in fact did not originally make. Help:Moving_a_page explains why you should not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content. Please read over Help:Moving a page. There is a tab at the top of the original roster page that says "Move". Click on that and move both the contents and the page history to a new page. If you are unable to move the original roster page, please let me know and I will do it for you. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I merged the histories, although I don't think the format change matches other participant rosters. In any case, you should be able to move it back, using the move tab, as noted above.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, "Raebedet", whoever it is, is not a Wikipedia editor. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gregbard/Sandbox/2
User:Gregbard/Sandbox/2 is showing up at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. However, I could not finded your request for speedy deletion posted on that page. Do you want the page speedy deleted? -- Jreferee   T / C  17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I made a request for that one, although I was planning on it at some point soon. I don't need it anymore. I did make other such requests recently. It is still puzzling though? I am going to tag it db-userreq. Thank you for the notice. Be well Greg Bard 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to user space
I'm afraid that pages in the main space (including GREG.BARD) are not allowed to exist as redirects into user space. Criteria for speedy deletion R2 allows administrators to delete them. Sam Blacketer 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought is was worth a try. Be well, Greg Bard 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PQ (logic)
A template has been added to the article PQ (logic), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author.&mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
Don't forget the little empty bar under the article. It does matter. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been slacking on it. Duly noted. Greg Bard 02:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation Article
You recently flagged the Interpretation Article as a philosophy article. Why? Perhaps you would be interested/be able to help in the conversation I am having with Hanno Kuntze on the talk page there. Thanks. Alfredo22 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Venn diagrams arrangement
Regarding your illustration of Venn diagrams at the Logical connective article-- I retract the offensive term you strongly, and perhaps rightly, objected to today. You are right in surmising that the Dharwadker encounter made me lose my temper. I will this evening remove all instances of the offensive term. Cullinane 23:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I was so worried about this whole thing. I appreciate your being conciliatory on this. Thank you for your contributions to the WP, and especially the logical operators. I am looking forward to collaborating with you in the future. Be well. Greg Bard 23:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't copy and paste move
You used copy and paste to move User WP Moral Philosophy to User WP Ethics. Please, please, don't do this. To fix it I had to 1) revert the changes at Moral Philosophy, 2) delete Ethics, 3) move Moral Philosophy, 4) undelete Ethics, and 5) revert Ethics to your preferred version. I leave for you to do 6: clean up the links to User WP Moral Philosophy so that they now point to the new page.  If you want the content at another page, just move them, don't both violate the GFDL and make extra work for an admin.  GRBerry 20:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the first time. See also the copy/paste move from  WikiProject Logic/participants to WikiProject Philosophy/Logic/participants, which was done against consensus of those participants.  I apologize for not contacting him earlier.  OOPS, it seems I did contact him about it earlier.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Arthur, I understand your concern here. However, let us be fair by clarifying. Nothing was done "against consensus". There was no discussion or consensus on that issue. It was status quo and that's all. Greg Bard 22:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I am sorry if I caused any undue inconvenience. I appreciate your work as an administrator. I don't know if you can see exactly what I am trying to do in the philosophy dept, but it has been quite a bit of work.

I have been trying to task force-ize (see WP:REFORM) many of the former wikiprojects that are more properly supported by WP:PHILO. This has involved a lot of moves, and content merges, etc. LOTS. Recently (after discussing the whole thing), I requested a speedy deletion for the continiental phil task force, got it, and then moved the critical theory wp into that space. I then merged some of the content of both via cut and paste. There seems to be no controversy about such a move because the continental t.f. was new and undeveloped, no talk page, and with only myself in the history.

In the case of the logic participants, the move was for the purpose of consistency with all of the other task forces. The participant list was previously on the main project page. Since only the participants section was being moved, a "move this page" did not seem appropriate at all. Arthur was able to move the history on that (cut and paste) move, but the format is still not consistent with the others. I have left that issue for later. I am still wondering how to proceed on it, I guess.

So I understand how to move, and that it is important to preserve the history. What I am wondering is just exactly which provision of GFDL do I need to be mindful? In my mind it was about priorities, not principles: preserve the history by a move if I can, but the important thing is being able to put things in the proper place. I am quite indifferent to "getting credit" for particular edits for myself, so I guess I was just indifferent to that priority. But I was under the impression that in the WP space, an area that is a tool rather than encyclopedia content, it really doesn't that much at matter at all. Please correct me. Be well, Greg Bard 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Say, I've been deleting your latest round of speedy requests. Ever thought of applying for adminship and doing this yourself? I can't say I know your work here all that well but you seem to have plenty of experience around here. If you're interested, I can spend a bit of time going through your contributions and perhaps nominate you if I find you're a suitable candidate. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I may apply someday. However, I think there are some people who are not too happy with me in the community. I still have a lot to learn. I think I will hold off for now. Thank you for the vote of confidence. Be well, Greg Bard 06:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your discretion is appreciated. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * More monitoring and cryptic non-communication from Arthur. You can be a real creep you know. Say Arthur, the Logic group is listed in the directory as a WikiProject, whereas all the other branches of philosophy (and yes Logic is a branch of philosophy) have been made appropriately into task forces. It is located at a WP:Logic address name, with a redirect from the philosophy directory. The worklists are separate the way the math people want. So it is not clear exactly what you are protesting by removing yourself from the group. Is it just a childish insistence that logic isn't philosophy? Because if it is that's pretty childish. The math/philosophy split was not my idea either. I am trying to make both sides happy by accommodating them both, but then there are curmudgeons like you who make it impossible. The talk page of the logic group consists entirely of bitching about project administration; almost no collaboration on content. That makes it's a big failure in that regard, and we would all be better off redirecting the discussion to WT:PHILO. The math project, and the phil project have their sh*t together. What can we learn from this analysis Arthur? The logic group is not mature enough to have its own assessment. The "philosphical logic" which had been neglected is now going to have a place in the philosophy assessment. If that means we lose our precious Arthur, then good day to you. Greg Bard 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, what it means that, in general, I cannot provide a useful assessment except for those articles which relate to mathematical logic. (This includes a few articles which aren't presently considered to be mathematical, but....)  With your repurposing of the logic group into philosophy, (including tagging all logic as philosophy), I don't feel I can make a useful contribution.  It seems clear that the repurposing was done without requesting input of the "members", which suggests it would be inappropriate for you to seek adminship without some further study of the concept of "consensus".  I may decide to try to regenerate what appeared to be your original idea of a "logical connective" task force under WikiProject Mathematics, where it belongs.  (I object to the individual connectives being labeled "philosophy" without being called "logic" above that.  As I don't think they fit your repurposed focus, I'll be removing the tags.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't see the sense of the statement immediately above. All articles' quality is pretty much assessed the same, regardless of which project is doing the assessment. On that basis, I cannot see any logical reason why the above individual would say that he cannot do assessments for the articles about which he feels competent. Regarding the making of a separate "mathematical logic" group, what would probably work best would be to make this one, existing, group, a direct subproject of both Mathematics and Philosophy, as it can be seen as directly relating to both groups. I know that similar "joint task force"s exist elsewhere, WikiProject Korea/Military history among them, and there's no reason to believe that that wouldn't work here. John Carter 21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A joint task force might work, but I don't think it would under the present management. (And WikiProject Mathematics has been talking about developing guidelines for in-project assessment of articles which is not necessarily in keeping with other projects' assessment criteria.  I think I could work under those guidelines....)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What propaganda. The math people work like a swarm. The logic articles all over wikipedia are strongly math-centric. So efforts to bring access to the philosophy department to bear on these articles is considered mismanagement. That's living in a bubble for you. Greg Bard 22:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Arthur, there is no repurposing going on here at all. There is an existing field under wikiproject mathematics called foundations which includes foundations, logic, and set theory. The math people have made it more than clear that they don't want any philosophy in thier assessment, so there has to be some OTHER place for it. You seem to be saying that if ANY logic goes under philosophy, and if this wikiproject has ANYthing to do with philosophy, that you won't have anything to do with it. I think I have incorporated compromises for both sides. Just because the membership is considered a part of wp:philo, doesn't mean the membership could not be considered as part of wp:math the same way. I don't think the wp:math is going to rearrange things so as to consider all of the logic members as math members, but there is no reason not to think of it that way. The whole issue seems immature to me.


 * Don't cry to me about consensus. The group we are dealing with here including yourself are not consensus builders AT ALL. I am doing the best that I can with what I have to deal with. I have been waiting since F-ING May to get these articles under philosophical logic into an assessment program of some kind. May! Meanwhile the wp:philo people have not been obstructionist at all. Seriously, Arthur.


 * I have no objection to your removing phil tags as long as you place math tags (usually with the foundations field) as appropriate. That includes the connectives. However, if I find that you are just removing tags and leaving logical topics with no connection to the project, I will interpret that as unproductive vandalism. You see WP:Logic really does work just fine if you can put the ridiculous issues (such as group identity, and territory) away. Your action puzzles me, and your explanation still doesn't make any sense. Greg Bard 21:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Quackery
Why does that article belong to Philosophy or Logic? &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is in the logical fallacies category. Feel free to remove it. Greg Bard 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC) I thought you didn't feel competent enough to comment in this area?

Tagging
You put a lot of Italian Renaissance humanists in the "medieval philosopher" category. Some of them had philosophical pretentions, but they didn't live in the Middle Ages. Cheers. --Folantin 10:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagging revisited
Hi, I see you're using AWB to tag articles for the philosophy project. Included in these has been David Pearce which you've tagged three times. This is actually a disambiguation article which includes a number of non-philosophers. The article referring to the philosopher is David Pearce (philosopher) (which is already tagged). Whilst there is a limited case for tagging disambiguation pages (to ensure the project helps to maintain the link) it is not an uncontroversial thing to do, because it can cause confusion for people looking for the other David Pearce articles; and also can swamp the project with all the other disambiguation articles which would also need to be included. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 11:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I'm not intending to tag disambiguation pages. In double checking my list I have tagged it inadvertently. I will be mindful of this, and I will go through and check to make sure there are no others like that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard 13:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Organizations categories
About a month ago you created Category:Organizations by type, Category:Organizations by location, Category:Organizations by ideology, and Category:Organizations by field. They are all currently empty and thus eligible for speedy deletion, but I thought before tagging them I should ask if you were planning to populate them. It wouldn't be a bad idea as the subcategories of Category:Organizations is quite confusing, but of course unless someone does the work, it's useless to have the categories there. Rigadoun (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, kudos & a question
Belated thanks for putting my name to WP:WPLOG and kudos for your energetic approach to getting things started. My question: what is the history of the project? It looks like it started as a subproject of philosophy (something I had argued against, likewise the suggestion that it be a subproject of mathematics) and then was turned into, perhaps by you, into an independent project. --- Charles Stewart (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean to tag Ultimate fate of the universe with ? I'm not seeing the connection. Based on the fact that you're using AWB I can only assume you're tagging on the basis of a specific category, but this tag doesn't really fit with the article, and I don't see how a Physical cosmology related article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy. Would you mind if I reverted the tagging?-- VectorPotential Talk 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am using AWB, however I am not tagging everything in a category. I am trying to be selective. I am pretty sure that almost all religions have an opinion on both of those topics. I'm not saying they have a real good opinion, but an opinion none-the-less. Those articles may be improved by editors who know about the teleological theories of various religions. I wouldn't object to the tag being removed so much. However, I am concerned that we get a little isolated without an interdisciplinary approach, and don't get an encyclopedic account of the topic. Are you sure there is nothing that can be contributed from the religious perspective? How about an academic metaphysician's perspective?
 * Don't get me wrong, I think organized religion and their myths are a terrible bane on society. However the intellectual integrity of the WP depends on accounting for different views.
 * I have had this type of issue come up before. Someone thinks that an article's topic is solely the province of field X, and field Y has nothing to contribute to it. Well that isn't how an encyclopedia article works. Otherwise you get an incomplete, or even biased account. Feel free to fix it, but please think about the concerns I have raised. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to the WikiProject Philosophy tag remaining, maybe as you say it will attract some interdisciplinary attention to the article.-- VectorPotential Talk 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Taskforce
Is it really helpful to plaster every article on the visual arts with the aesthetics tag? Are you are actually going to be able to do anything useful in the way of patrolling or improving these articles, either in terms of manpower or knowledge? The Visual arts project should be the primary one for articles without a specific link to aesthetics, and should be added where it does not exist, and should not be put below the aesthetics one. Johnbod 13:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Marxism task force
I replied at WT:1.0/I. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kazue Nii
Greg, for your info, take a look at the article about Father Gordon Combs. Also look at the early ones. Very interesting. User: ForEwa7 —Preceding comment was added at 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

CAStateSenDist
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on CAStateSenDist, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because CAStateSenDist is a test page. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting CAStateSenDist, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

help
somebody has redefined : and it nlowt to do with Logic! Do you knopw how to fix? --Philogo (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)nor sorted--Philogo (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unintended consequences
Hi Greg, it looks like you're using AWB to change all (or at least a whole lot) of articles, so that they link to unintended consequence (instead of merely saying the word. I don't think that's a good idea. "Unintended consequences" is a very common phrase that most people know the meaning of; and even if they don't, it's easy to figure it out by looking up the two words in a dictionary. Adding the link doesn't add value to the articles. I see that there's a Wikipedia guideline about this: Only make links that are relevant to the context. Might be worth taking a look before continuing on your project. Thanks, -Pete (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Greg, I definitely don't have the time or inclination to get into a debate on this. I do have a degree in philosophy, but I don't see how that would give me or anybody else any special status in making a determination in this matter. Your project seems to me to fly in the face of common sense, but I can see now that your decision is considered and not whimsical, so carry on. I did revert your change in Oregon Ballot Measure 50 (1997). -Pete (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism Task Force
Hey Gregbard, a few of us are trying to put a task force together of folks involved in working on anarchist-oriented articles, and I was told that you would be a good person to check in with setting this up. We started building a page in my sandbox based on the Marxist TF page, but we're kinda waiting for a little more input from the WP Philosophy crew before going live with it. Do you have any thoughts/concerns/comments? Murderbike (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded at WP:PHILO. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Chico
The article looks great. I assume you live there, or have lived there. How is the quality of life, and what do you think about the opportunities there, as well as the University? Just curious about Chico. I visited once and it stuck in my head. Tparameter (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What can I say about Chico? The place is very special, one-of-a-kind. The people are friendly, and nice. It has a dynamic culture. The university is a statewide leader in many areas. The city has a very low cost of living and rent. The job market is not the greatest however. Graduates face the reality of having to leave Chico in order to get the "real job." It is also currently one of the top "bubble" markets in real estate. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Math templates
When you add a math rating template to an article, please fill in all three fields. There is no purpose to the template unless all the fields are filled in. Even if you wrote the entire article yourself, you can give it an initial assessment. If you don't someone else has to go through an fill in the rating information. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Q-is-true.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Q-is-true.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Attack
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Metalogic
Would you please put a description of the category. I doubt very much that most of the articles you've added to it belong there, but if you would explain what you mean by it, I might see that I'm wrong.

In any case, if you don't put text into the category today, it goes to CfD. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I may have forthcoming elaborations on the category and the article so I hope this qualifies with the relatively famous Wikipedian and will stave off his ultimatum. Contributing under duress makes me sad. On a brighter note...


 * The Metalogic category is a perfectly WONDERFUL category. You are being SILLY SILLY SILLY trying to kill it off this morning on its birthday. Hopefully it will be sufficiently obvious to others and you will be the only sour-puss about it.


 * Here is some analysis: The paltry page on metalogic, compared to the ample page on metamathematics sure does support my claim of a math-centric wikipedia. I think you view this as some big threat from the mathematical logic separatist point of view. If math isn't subordinate to logic as has been claimed, then surely this guy will put it "under" metalogic in some regard. So it will be no surprise to see you crying about model theory and proof theory. Get over it. Wikipedia readers will be well informed by this proper connection to metalogic. It is not an either/or territory issue. Keep the proper connections. The description I provided is supported by a reliable source. I would like to see some statement expressly denying it before we do anything rash. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that Metalogic itself, is a neologism. I supose that book is a reliable source....  Nonetheless, I've proposed merging the article to metamathematics and the category to Category:Logic, although Category:Mathematical logic may be more appropriate.  You may object if you think the mergers are inappropriate.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure its a neologism... if you are one hundred years old. See Carnap and Tarksi. My goodness Arthur. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gregbard, thanks for the note at my talk; I'll try to stay involved. However, please recall that we are working towards consensus. I assure you that while Rubin may be math-centric, he's working in good faith. So for example a specific citation from Carnap or Tarski (you mean "Tarski", not "Tarksi", right?) would be helpful. I think you and I agree that "Metalogic" can, and should, address a broader audience than "Model Theory" would; nevertheless, the most prolific logicians today are mathematicians and computer scientists; progress there has been driving the subject in our lifetimes. I believe that mathematicians who cross-teach (e.g. Rota had a position in the philosphy department, too, and Schoenfield's logic course was cross-listed, although I pity the philo majors who took it) can lead the way here. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Greg, I've rolled back your edit to the recent CfD on... metalogic or whatever it was, I don't care. The reason is that your comments about Arthur Rubin were unacceptable.

If you can rephrase those comments to be more polite, by all means do so. DS (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Talking down
Hello Gregbard, I assumed you were watching my talk page, so I replied there. I am not sure if you have seen it. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the long reply. I am very happy with what you wrote: You understood what I wrote exactly in the way I meant it, you replied in the same way, and you made a couple of valid points that I was not aware of. I think we all need such exchanges to grow our personalities. I am sorry I felt offended initially (and needlessly) and offended you in return. If you want specific replies to single points, just tell me and I will put my answers next to your questions over there. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to avoid sweeping generalizations about members of the math wikiproject, such as "Now that the WP:MATH people look like they will not be able to kill the metalogic category, the math people are proposing to depopulate it, and remove it out from under the category:mathematical logic." To my knowledge, I have been uninvolved in the discussion about that category. I have, however, edited metalogic to clarify it for mathematicians and add another reference. Generalizations about the intentions of the entire wikiproject only serve to poison discussion and make it more difficult for you to convince others about your points. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Formalism
Hi Greg,

I removed the links to Formalism at the top of each of the constituent articles according to standard convention. It does not make sense to go through every article linked on a disambiguation page and place a disambiguation link there. The purpose of Template:Otheruses is to direct users to the disambiguation article from the main article. In this case, no article as been deemed more notable than the others, therefore the disambiguation page is the main article. For example, if I was looking for the article on literary formalism, I would type "Formalism" into the search bar. This would take me directly to the disambiguation page, and I would click Formalism (literature). I would not type "Formalism (art)" or "Formalism (law)" into the search bar. There are no cases in which someone looking for a particular article on the disambiguation page would find themselves on a different article listed on the disambiguation page, therefore mass reproduction of disambiguation links does not constitute helpful edits. I hope I have explained myself clearly. Please let me know if you disagree.

Neelix (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is some policy that you are appealing to here, then feel free to go back and revert my undo of those edits. However, since it appears to be a pretty bad policy, I think you should at least make a note of which one it is in the edit summary. I think you are presuming a lot about the way people search for things, and otherwise use the WP. There are a number of templates for the purpose of making the appropriate connections for people's wp reading convenience. Perhaps there is a more appropriate one to use rather than deleting the helpful note altogether? Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Greg,


 * I appreciate your concern for the functionality of Wikipedia, but please try to understand the logic behind this well-established practice. Consider Black (disambiguation).  The main article is Black.  Anyone looking for any other article that could be refered to as "Black" would first go to Black, then click on Black (disambiguation), then click on the article they are looking for.  By your convention, we would place a link to Black (disambiguation) on every article listed on that page: Black people, Black (surname), Black, Alabama, Black (Bangladeshi band), Black (crater), and on down the line.  These are superfluous links that clutter articles unnecessarily.  If you still disagree, please start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).  I am not the only one who will want to be a part of a discussion on such a change in policy should it be suggested. :Neelix (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Neelix, I have taken a look at Disambiguation. It seems to me that under this provision the hatnotes I took the time to place were appropriate. The policy does not seem to support your description of how it is. I think this is one problem. Please show me a section that describes the policy you are thinking of? I don't have any proposed amendments to this policy. I also seems to me that the way I had them was more prolific on wp.


 * Also, I think you have revealed another problem in your analogy. I think formalism in art, literature, etc. are obviously similar and connected in a way that "black people" and "Black (album)" would not be. I still have a big question mark floating over my head over your actions. You should never presume how people use this thing. I am pretty sure if we accept your presumptions about how people use wp that we should get rid of the random article link. People don't search that way, right? My point is: just make the info available. In the case of formalism they are all quite a bit connected. Help me out and show me where you are talking about a policy.


 * Also, the main page should be Formalism which should redirect to (or possess the content of) Formalism (philosophy). Formalism (disambiguation) should not be a redirect as it is, but rather we should move the contents of Formalism into it. I hadn't noticed that up until this point, so I will get to it eventually if no one else does. Perhaps this was the source of confusion? I will also be putting the hatnotes back in at some point probably --unless there is a real good reason why not. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Greg,


 * I think we got off to the wrong start. I believe my initial understanding of your reasons for wanting to keep the disambiguation links was flawed.  I had been under the impression that you wanted to link each article known as "Formalism" to the disambiguation page simply because of its title.  This is clearly warned against in the link you provided me:


 * While there is no specific prohibition against it, adding disambiguation links to a page with a name that clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term is discouraged. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris". It is very unlikely that someone arriving there would have been looking for any other "Solaris", so it is unnecessary to add a link pointing to the Solaris disambiguation page. However, it would be perfectly appropriate to add a link to Solaris (novel) (but not, say, Solaris (operating system)) to its "See also" section.


 * I am now under the impression that you wish to link all the "Formalism" articles together because they deal with different areas of a movement; they are not unrelated articles you wish to link together because of their coincidentally mutual title. Please correct me if I am again misunderstanding your intentions.  If this is the case, I completely agree that Formalism should possess the content of (not redirect to) Formalism (philosophy).  Based on this line of thinking, perhaps it would be best to do away with the disambiguation page altogether.  A disambiguation page implies a list of unrelated articles.  Rather than relocating content currently on Formalism to Formalism (disambiguation), why not create a template that lists the different forms of the formalist movement (art, literature, music, etc.)?  The template could be located on each of the articles.


 * I hope we are approaching a similar understanding of the situation at hand. Thank you for sticking with the conversation and explaining your views thus far.
 * Neelix (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we got off to the wrong start. You are just doing your thing. I think a disambiguation page is still needed. I don't think they are close enough to warrant a navigation bar or anything like that. I think Trovatore (down below) objects to making one article out of it, and that is not what I was advocating either. I was just suggesting switching the names around and the hatnotes are just fine too. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Mixing in here -- doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Formalism in literature or art is quite a different notion from formalism in philosophy or mathematics. They are not historically connected movements as far as I know; they just happen to have the same name. They might have other similarities beyond the name, but treating them in a common article based on such similarities that you might perceive strikes me as bordering on OR. --Trovatore (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OR? All I want is for there to be a link to the other formalisms for people's convenience. Jeez. Historically connected? They have the conceptual connection that makes form a priority. I'm not making some grand thesis that all of these formalisms are metaphysically the same or that there exists some movement or any thing close. They are close enough to warrant convenient links to the others and that's all. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that might be more appropriate in a "see also" section. Hatnotes are not so much for for "you might also find this interesting" but more for "maybe you got to this article by mistake and you really wanted something else entirely". That isn't likely to be the case in the articles we're discussing, as far as I can tell. --Trovatore (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I feel like mixing in as well. Google is good at finding Wikipedia's main or disambiguation article, and at least in this case MSN also shows the disambiguation page first. But this is probably the result of special programming, as the case of AltaVista shows. (When I tried it, I got Russian formalism first.) Also, a hatnote to formalism seems to be less obtrusive and easier to maintain than numerous "see also" links and is even more clearly not OR. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest that this discussion be moved to Talk:Formalism. By the number of users who have joined in the discussion, it seems that it needs to take place somewhere that other users will be able to refer back to it in the future once a consensus has been reached.  It is more likely that other users concerned about this topic will find the discussion if it is there rather than here as well. Neelix (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Propositional logic
I think you are pretty familiar with the WP articles that exist on logic. Do you know if there is an overview article on sentential logic? There is Propositional calculus, but that article is mostly concerned with deductive systems for propositional logic (for example, it doesn't seem to give much if any attention to semantics). I was thinking of reworking Zeroth order logic into a general overview of sentential logic, and updating the redirects from propositional logic and sentential logic to point there. What do you think? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw that it was removed from the template, and I thought 'o well.' I couldn't really argue on the quality issue, but removing it would make it less likely that it would be improved. I guess it had the opposite effect. I am open-minded on the headings on the template 0th,1st,2nd; or prop,pred,whatever. The heading should be a substantial overview article. Your idea is perfectly wonderful. I don't think there is a good overview of these topics, however I have often thought that there should be one that makes these topics accessible. Happy Monday. (my Friday) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see we agree completely here. I removed the article from the template because only Jon Awbrey could understand it and I was going to redirect it to propositional logic. I think zeroth-order is not a standard term, but we could back it with references if we decide to promote it. (It's all the same to me.) --Hans Adler (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * After looking at things a little more, I think that the articles would benefit from some higher-level organization. I want to start an interdisciplinary wikiproject task force to have a centralized place to discuss all the pages related to propositional logic and its applications. Your input would be valuable. The page is WP:BATF. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Argument (logic) logical argument

 * You are undoing my edits in the middle of my edits! What's the rush? Would you say what you oproipose to di on the talk page you set up to discuss the matter, as I have done.--Philogo (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Histogram equalization and philosophy
What does Histogram equalization have to do with philosophy? Cburnett (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason why that article was placed as a part of that project is because it is part of the visual arts theory category. Most of the articles from that category were added because of their connection to Aesthetics. Feel free to remove the tag for any articles which you feel would not really benefit from being a part of WP:PHILO. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Many of the articles in that category are only fairly remotely appropriate. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:P-is-true.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:P-is-true.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. BJBot (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Browsebarwpphil
A tag has been placed on Template:Browsebarwpphil 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 (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AWB error?
Please look at and fix. Also check your other edits to make sure this didn't happen elsewhere. -- Jeandré, 2007-10-20t20:06z--Forich (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Belated reply and peace between mathematics and philosophers
More than a year ago, you replied to my post saying, among other things:
 * I was only beginning to realize the politics around here at that stage. I was looking at the article on theorem, and was so disappointed at the entirely mathematical treatment of the subject. I learned in the course of those editing discussions how it is around here. Those WP:MATH people basically have a swarm of regulars who are quite hypercritical and narrow at times. They have nothing better to do than babysit articles so it looks the way they want. Ordinarily I would be fully grateful for such interest by legitimate academics, and such intelligent folks. However, the math-centric pov here overwhelms the logic field of articles.

...and explaining what you had to do to organise editing work on logic.

I'll make some assertions, some of which I expect you to agree with, some I expect you to contest, and some that I don't know what to expect in reply! So, opinionatedly:
 * 1) The maths wikiproject is more successful than the philosophy wikiproject, in that it produces articles of a generally higher quality, and which are a genuinely encyclopedic representation of mathematical scholarship;
 * 2) Against this, mathematical pages are accessible to relatively few users of Wikipedia; a sign of the perception of this is how few maths articles are regarded as suitable for featured article status, and how many of those are about mathematicians;
 * 3) The European/Islamic logical tradition has been a philosophical one, but that tradition has had closer ties to mathematics than any other discipline, save, perhaps, history.  The next most successful logical tradition, the Indian one, had its roots in linguistics;
 * 4) Logic's ties to philosophy are fundamental, because of the nature of the fundamental questions in logic, but they do not exhaust the discipline.  Logic's ties to mathematics, the study of computation, and linguistics are also fundamental.
 * 5) Wikipedia's account of logic in its articles would serve its users better if it did not Balkanise its treatment of the subject.
 * 6) Certain subjects &mdash;such as modal logic, predicate logic, soundness, completeness, and Hilbert system&mdash; need both philosophical and mathematical content to be treated properly.

None of these points address the practical problems you have faced getting mathematicians to treat the non-mathematical aspects of logic properly. I think that your division of the pages has worked out fairly well, but perhaps a new taskforce, perhaps called the formal logic taskforce could be useful, that would ensure an adequate and elementary treatment of formal logic topics on a core list with subjects above, and which looks for opportunities to improve signposting between the philosophical and mathematical slices of the subject. The workforce might also manage to get some linguists involved.

I've had a bit of time recently for Wikipedia, though I don't know how much time I'll have in the near future, but I would like to make an impression on the logic articles. I'm very pleased with what I've seen of your editing, and it may be that you would find your fights with mathematicians easier, if you had a former mathematical/computational logician working alongside you. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Postscript: critical thinking
Off on a not quite completely unrelated tangent...

The terms critical thinking, college logic, dialectic, informal reasoning, rational argument (and other terms) all have distinct meanings, but equally all point to a similar phenomena of concern, which has had a subsection of the Logic article now called 'Informal reasoning'. You've obviously thought at some length about this phenomena, and have now created the critical thinking category. I'm still not happy with the name of the logic subsection, and am now thinking that maybe a title along the lines of "From the Trivium to critical thinking" would be a better title, justifying a more historical treatment. Also, maybe farming out a knowledge representation subsection would help both this and the 'logic in computer science' section.

I'd be interested in ideas about what to do with this section. It's been bothering me for five years now. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism
Thanks for your note, and for your work in improving categorization. From my limited knowledge of it, Aesthetic Realism (AR) appears to be as much a form of psychotherapy as a philosophy. It has nothing to do with realism but there is some connection with aesthetics. While I may be mangling it, the AR view is that it is necessary to understand and embrace opposites in order to achieve fulfillment. This can be applied to many topics, from racism to aesthetics, and it is derived from a long poem published in the 1920s. I'll take a deeper look and see if I can find the most appropriate categories.  Will Beback   talk    02:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I ended up changing it to Category: Personal development, based on the simple fact that there is almost nothing written about it by 3rd party sources except for a 3-page entry in the "The Psychology Today omnibook of personal development", ISBN 0688032257. The movement's chief fame came in the 1970s when followers promoted it as a way of changing from homosexuality (by studying poetry!). When that claim was mostly ignored by the media they engaged in sustained picketing at the homes and offices of newspaper editors. They withdrew their claims about changing homosexuals by 1980, and have attracted even less attention. They are based entirely in Greenwich Village, NY, where they conduct classes and performances. It's an odd little group. Some folks view them as a cult but everyone else pretty much ignores them. The bottom line is that they are hard to categorize!   Will Beback    talk    08:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that thing is weird. I was starting to think it needed a title with some sort of parentheses like Category:Aesthetic Realism (?), but that makes for ugly categories. Put it whereever. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism and corporatism
I see you've tagged Social anarchism and Category:Anarchism with Category:Corporatism. Could you explain? As I understand corporatism (from a political science perspective), it involves a mediation between individuals and the state by a fairly small number of broadly offically recognized, and largely hierarchical, representative groups. Anarchism, on the other hand, rejects the state, hierarchy, and representation. I can see a certain resemblance to syndicalism (which obviously has an overlap with anarchism), in that unions in a syndicalist society would corporatively represent the interests of their members. But I'm not at all sure that that connection justifies a general connection of Anarchism, or it's particular social variant, with corporatism. VoluntarySlave (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am meaning the term corporatism in a more broad sense than you describe. There are at least three types of corporatist political cultures: Anarchist corporatism, Tory corporatism, and Fascist corporatism. This is to say that they subjugate the interest of the individual to the group. In social anarchist cultures they have no institutions because they have very strong common community values; the most important of which involve the group interest. They don't need gov't because its all automatic.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. I can see how anarchism would come under that definition of corporatism. Is it a common definition? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the wikipedia article on corporatism (although obviously that's not the end of the matter), and a little bit of internet research doesn't seem to turn up any use of it in this broader sense. Can you point to a source for this use of the term? VoluntarySlave (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not have any information on Anarchist corporatism at all, however, I believe it probably is commonly known as Social anarchism. The other ones are from W. Stewart as cited. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD of Validity (logic)
Please make sure you check "What links here" before nominating an article for speedy deletion. While the article was clearly a duplicate, there are still lots of pages linking to it and deleting it would cause an enormous amounts of dead links. I've redirected the page instead. - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Checking the what links here absolutely is on my list of things to do. However, most of those links come from one banner, so it's really not a big deal. I really would have preferred you just delete that. We will get to it sometime. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Corporatism and Corporate governance
Please explain why did you add the article Corporate governance to the Corporatism category. It seems like that category stands for a very political concept, where corporations rule the world. I hope yo do understand that Corporate governance hasn't anything to do with that, in fact, the word governance refers to the firm's own management, not that of the country...--Forich (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Corporatism isn't exactly about "corporations running the world" so much as it is the belief that some group is the basic unit of society, rather than the individual. That belief is a requirement of every member of every board of directors of every corporation (fiduciary responsibility). So that is a corporatist political culture. It doesn't really matter if they are using political power at the local, or national level, or even within a sorority.


 * However, if you really object, you are free to remove it. I can see that the category makes sense. However I do not have a source that uses the term "corporate governance" and specifically calls it a corporatist culture. It can be inferred from understanding the concept. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanatory power
Thank you for creating Explanatory power! Cheers and happy editing, Kingturtle (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sports rules
I see that you recently moved all the articles in Category:Sports rules and regulations to Category:Sports rules. Was this renaming discussed at WP:CFD before it was performed? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I create the sports rules and regulations category, and spent a lot of time populating and organizing it? Why have to made this move without discussion or RATIONALE??? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies for what may appear to be insensitive behavior. I honestly thought it would non-controversial. The whole thing is part of my populating and organizing the Rules category, which had not existed. I saw that there already was a Sports law category, and so it appeared to be redundant. I don't think that between "sports rules", "sports regulations" and "sports law" that anyone is going to say there are regulations which are not merely rules. If so, then they really are sports laws. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Prior to Sports rules and regulations, there was no category to organize sports into a cental location. You have to understand the amount of time it takes to create and populate something like this after Wikipedia has been around for years.  I don't understand the change merely because you didn't like the name.  Quite puzzling.  Look, it would appreciated if you would just discuss something as big as this prior to taking action,that's what CfD is for.  Good day.  -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Merely because you didn't like the name?" Well I tell you what, you are absolutely correct moving things merely because one doesn't like the name is a terrible reason for doing things.


 * We agree about that. HOWEVER, that sure isn't the reason I gave for moving the category, and the previous post certainly demonstrates that sufficiently (i.e. I have given a reasoned basis now that someone has raised a concern.) It is not really fair or productive to try to characterize things as whim. I don't think you created that name on a whim!


 * I think you are missing a point here, which you have not answered: In your mind are there regulations which are not rules? I don't really think so, however I am open minded. Perhaps, this is an opportunity to make an even better organization with a Category:Sports regulation for things like the Commissioner of Baseball, and league "regulations", etc.


 * Average people use the Wikipedia, so we should gear our organization toward that. Some people just are looking for the rules! If there is some big difference, as you claim, perhaps it is time to consider a category for these regulations as you see them different from rules. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this about more than rules of the game. It includes governing sports bodies and their regulatory roles.  -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 12:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have any opinion on the merits of the different names (perhaps I am too dense to appreciate the fine distinction between "rules" and "regulations"), but please note that any category renaming that doesn't fit within the fairly narrow "speedy renaming" criteria outlined on WP:CFD should be posted for discussion before being carried out. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some clearly reasonable and some clearly unreasonable cases. In the event of clearly unreasonable cases, Wikipedia editors are free to use reason. All I can promise is to be careful. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Classical and Classicism
Hello. I notice you have an interest in Classicism, having created a template on the subject. You may like to take a look at the article on the word Classical. I have rewritten it considerably recently. It was a fairly standard disambiguation page but I have written it to try to show how the meaning of the word has changed over time. Also, I notice you said that the classicism template comes under the philosophy wikiproject. Do you think the page on the word Classical should be under that project too? Yaris678 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Chico-seal.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Chico-seal.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. §hep Talk  21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch for 3RR, yourself
On Philosophical skepticism. I don't think the anon's edits qualify is clear vandalism, although they are clearly WP:OR, by his own statements. I don't want you blocked for an accidental violation of the rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank Arthur, let me know if there's anything I can do. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a formal report at WP:AN3, although some of the edits before "1st revert" were probably also reverts. I only noticed this because of his edit at Artificial intelligence, which I didn't find helpful, but is only an OR violation.  But this means I probably shouldn't block him myself.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone else blocked him finally. Stay cool Art.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation
Why are you editing Formal interpretation, when the indicated merge target is Interpretation (logic)? Or did you tag the wrong article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that the content of "Formal interpretation" would move over to the interpretation (logic) location, and leave a redirect behind. I have refactored much of the information so as to hopefully cover everything without deleting anything. I'm really most interested in the organization of things. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what you're proposing might lose edit history, and possibly fail the GFDL, but I can see the point of doing it that way. Let's have a discussion on the methods used, as well as on the resulting content.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Belief system
I'm questioning your move from here to here. What do you mean by "merge of two"? Which two? And why didn't you use "move" command? And how about the talk page here? Bennylin (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There had been a "list of belief systems" and a "list of philosophies" which were both collections of isms which looked pretty much identical, with some included in one, some in the other, and some in both. With the "glossary" of the same stuff it was a bit redundant. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cognitive revolution
You added this to the "philosophy of religion" task force for some reason. I removed it, and added it to mind. I took a look at your user page and saw this quote: "If you don't understand something intellectually, you don't understand it at all." Don't you think that Richard Feynman's aphorism, "What I cannot create, I do not understand" is more to the point? Intellectual understanding without application is not a full understanding. I can talk to you about music and say I understand it, but if I can't show you what I'm talking about on sheet music, or on an instrument or as a conductor or sound engineer, then what use is understanding music intellectually? Might as well count the angels on the head of a pin. It should also be said that there are many things that people do understand but don't understand intellectually. Folk art, astronomy, herbalism and medicine, psychology, etc. are good historical examples. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tabs...
... at WikiProject Logic. Excellent idea. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anytime. If there is any way I can make it better, let me know. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sentential logic
Did you empty the category? You apparently nominated it for deletion today, but didn't complete the nomination. If you emptied it, please revert yourself and nominate the category correctly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not much of a deletionist. I didn't enter into any formal process other than proposing it on the talk page about a week ago. I now have entered it on a line at cfd.
 * I only use the AWB when I am on campus, so I will not be reverting anything soon. I only moved it at that time because of time management/convenience. Say Arthur, there are clearly reasonable cases and clearly reasonable cases for formal processes like that. The article redirects to "propositional logic," and the logic template has a section titled "propositional logic." There had been at least some discussion about it at one point. You are an admin, we might as well speedy delete it, and make things easy on ourselves. If we have to wait a week, I'm really indifferent, but lets at least get the ball rolling.
 * Thanks for reminding me of the formal process, though. I didn't think of it at the time because I was originally thinking "speedy delete". Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you revert to the status quo until the matter has been disussed? I see you have altered a number of pages today that were in the category.--Philogo (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? I've been pretty busy with templates, theories, traditions, movements, schools, fields, and branches. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice you had changed a number of articles from category sentential logic to category propositional logic. This is not uncontroversial and it would be better surely to discuss first? NB

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for Discussion page. Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. You appear to be ignoring this and emptying the category --Philogo (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Logic2
FYI: Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 26. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Category emptying prior to CFD discussion
This is similar to the comments above, but please see also the comments on Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30. AllyD (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Epistemology portal
Hi Gregbard, I changed the colour scheme of the epistemology portal to a blue because I thought it was easier to read. You reverted the changes before I was finished (I hadn't edited the boxes), so I changed it back so the boxes match the background colour. Feel free to change it back (or to something else) if you don't like it as it is, but I just thought the blue suited a lot better than the pink/purple. Thanks, O2mcgovem (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think having different sections different colours is a really good idea, so I changed the Epistemology portal back to a purple colour scheme. It's more readable than the last one, I think. Feel free to change it further. Sorry for interfering, but I guess that's WP for ya! :) O2mcgovem (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories
See the closes I performed on your CfD nominations here and here. In the future, will you please bring category proposals to WP:CFD prior to emptying a category or performing a manual merge? When you do these actions prior to a nomination it essentially makes your nomination a non-starter for most editors on administrative grounds, and it creates a whole lot of necessary but probably (ultimately) useless administrative reversions of the work already performed. That means more work for the CFD closers, which most don't like. CfD is not a forum to gain pro forma approval for the actions you've already taken.

Note that in one discussion an editor is calling for users who do this to be blocked for a period of time because they are becoming more and more frequent. I'm not necessarily endorsing that view, but you should be aware that there is a movement to deal more stringently with this type of behavior.

Also, if you re-nominate, please follow the instructions at WP:CFD. These categories were tagged with the wrong deletion template. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop reverting my work in the philosophy categories. These moves were discussed ahead of time at WP:PHILO. I understand that there is a process for the category deletion, however my impressionj is that the interest and will of the project is the priority.
 * If you only robotically adhere to these policies without considering carefully what you are reverting, you will invariably revert more correct classifications which were carefully considered. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is exactly why it's important to follow CFD procedure. As I said, much work gets needlessly reverted when you don't! But I won't stop doing what I said in my close I would do, which was restore the categories that were manually emptied prior to discussion. Don't empty them again without a fresh nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing agreed to in the discussion is the categories under discussion. If you revert my edits, you will also be reverting useful edits that I made with careful individual consideration. Unless you are willing to give the same individual attention to each article, reverting only the categories under discussion, I feel that I would have the right to revert those which contained useful edits along with the offending ones. Say listen, you are really screwing up some good work. Please look at each edit individually or don't do it. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The proposal was under consideration for half a month at WP:PHILO. I think the fact the three or four regulars at CFD form an oligarchy which has no regard for work within a the context of a project. My impression was that I got the consent that I needed from the group who is ON RECORD being responsible for those categories. You have wasted valuable time because you are applying the rules without any consideration for their spirit. Those categories should have been speedy deleted.

If I could direct your attention to WP:PHILO. Please note the navigation bar organizes the task forces such that we could reasonably expect that every "philosophy" article in WP would be covered by at least one task force. Ideally, each article should be within at least one task force for subject area, one for major tradition, one for period. This set up had been discussed at WT:PHIL a long time ago. Since it was set up, it has proven to be a good system of organization.

The article space categories do not mirror this organizational system perfectly. In fact, articles in the philosophy department need a lot of help generally. I am now doing my part by looking at the categories. Obviously, my goal has been to put them into a category structure similar to the task force structure.

I think there has already been an enormous amount of planning, thought, and consideration by many people to make the task force structure possible. I think we can reasonably conclude that it can serve as a model for organizing the article space categories. Furthermore, the proposal was posted at WT:PHILO explicitly for half a month. If anyone had objected we would have heard something by now already either in response to the task force set up or the latest proposal consistent with it.

You should please cooperate with the proposal in consideration of the project. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Greg, I'm not going to argue with you. First, remember I am only implementing what the consensus was in a CfD discussion. That consensus was to restore the categories to their previous condition. If you have a conflicting consensus, then the simple solution is to re-nominate the categories at CFD to resolve the conflict. I explicitly left this option open to you in closing the discussion. Your continued instance that this is all a waste of time and unhelpful is exactly the point—to avoid it, all you need to do is follow a few simple procedures and you're off and running. Second, remember that WP:CFD probably gets more views than WP:PHILO, and there are invariably some at CFD who will not comment at WikiProjects, which is another reason it's appropriate to run it by CFD if you plan on deleting a category. No WikiProject is "responsible" for a category. WikiProjects kind of "adopt" categories and nurse them along, but they don't own them, nor are they the sole arbiters of them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Say listen, you sure did empty the "Philosophical traditions" category. The creation of that category was discussed prior as well. There is an interpretation that says that you are kind of guilty of doing the exact same thing that I am accused of. I realize that you deal with a lot of categories. So do I. In the course of my edits I reserve the right to classify according to reason. There are a few un-enunciated rules in the philosophy department, and I don't want to have any trouble. The "philosophical terminology" and "philosophical concepts" categories are both catch all "junk" categories. I have been classifying articles in their proper department and moving them out of those. There are numerous other features of the task force and category system which are too numerous to detail here. I absolutely do need some leeway if people are going to invoke the CFD oligarchy versus the philosophy department oligarchy. The philosophy department doesn't necessarily have the heavy hitters to win that without a great coordinated effort. Is there any way I can get some leeway if I propose a few broad principles of action? I move too much stuff around to get this kind of hassle all the time. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I personally can make that decision on behalf of WP. Perhaps you could re-nominate the categories and express your concerns there. You'll be more likely to get a positive response from editors, I would think, if you avoid calling the various processes or groups "oligarchies". The vast majority of them are just ways of structuring WP so there is some organized way of reaching consensus, since that's how WP is supposed to make decisions. They are not meant to be an impediment to change, but I suppose they are partially meant to slow-up structural change that would be planned and implemented by just one person. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Burying edit histories in redirects
I noticed you merged List of philosophies and List of belief systems into a third (new) page: List of philosophical theories. Unfortunately, what that does is strands the edit histories of both merged pages on redirect pages, instead of just one. In this case, the oldest page (List of philosophies, which goes back to 2004) should be retained (and renamed), and the newer page merged into it. That preserves the edit history, which is important to those who contributed to the page, and to those who want to see who contributed to the page.

To merge 2 pages, you should generally keep one of them and merge the other page into it. See WP:MERGE for more details.

The Transhumanist 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated the page List of philosophical theories for deletion, to fix the problem mentioned above. It is not meant as a debate for the rename/merge, just an administrative fix of the damaged edit history. I've contested the merge by reverting the redirects on the respective pages. Combining a merge and rename into a single procedure makes it impossible to revert without an AfD. The Transhumanist 04:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical theory prod
I've prodded Philosophical theory.

I've been looking for a term like this for years (that encompasses all the terminology types within philosophy). I'm pretty sure this isn't it. The closest one I've found is "philosophy", in the context of "a specific philosophy". See Philosophy.

I've posted my reasoning on the article's talk page.

I wish to find a solution to this problem as much as you do, and would be happy to assist in any way that I can. I regularly visit one of the largest libraries in the country, and can help with look ups, etc.

There's a treatment of the various terminology types in the introduction to The Ism Book, that you might find interesting. (If it still exists. I can't verify from this computer if the link is still good.)

Anyhow, I'm impressed with your contribution record, and with your effort to better organize/categorize the topics of philosophy.

Keep up the good work, and let me know if you need any help following up leads on the term for "philosophical term type".

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 04:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of glossaries...
I ran across this philosophy glossary on the web: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~anderson/phldef.htm

Enjoy.

The Transhumanist 01:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am so glad you shared that. It's stellar. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Invitation
You stated "At some point I would like to have a consistent format for things."

What did you mean by "things"?

And what did you mean by "format"?

And just in case, what did you mean by "consistent"?

What would the task force do?

The Transhumanist 03:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Philosophical theory
???

The Transhumanist 20:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I left you hanging. I think I see things differently, so I was thinking about it before I got back to you.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I replied to both of your replies there, including some questions. The Transhumanist 03:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your revision
Thank you for your revision on the entry of Reversal Theory! And I find that our areas of interest are similar, so nice to meet you! Dreamback1116 (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dichotomies
I'm looking for opinions about whether certain articles should be in Category:Dichotomies. You have contributed on Category talk:Dichotomies, so perhaps you would like to view the current discussion and add your thoughts. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Set theoretic definitions of logical connectives
Hi. I'm very interested in some set theory you have once included in the logical connectives article. You turned it into something very useful, when you replaced the awkward contradiction symbol for the empty set. The whole topic was removed by CBM with the funny statement "It's quite unclear to me what these sets are supposed to represent. It was tagged as possible OR for some time."

On the basis of what you added I have (for sure not as the first one) developed a definition of n-ary logical connectives, where the contradiction is represented by the empty set, and the tautology is represented by the infinit powerset of the empty set (the powerset of the powerset of the powerset ... and so on ... of the empty set).

Can you tell me, where you've got the set theoretic definition of the 2-ary connectives from? And possibly a notable source, where I find the generalisation for n-ary connectives? Than I could include it in the Wikipedia.

By the way: Do you know how the infinit powerset of the empty set is called? Greetings, Lipedia (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

See also link in Extrusion
Hi, I see that you are persistent at wanting the toothpaste tube theory link in the extrusion article, however I'm at a complete loss as to how it applies to the article. The toothpaste tube theory article is about theories of law, economics, philosophy, etc., whereas extruding is about a process. What am I missing? Wizard191 (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In every formulation of the toothpaste tube theory, the analogy is that the process in question (i.e. hiring practices, exports, etcetera) behave like the extrusion of toothpaste from a toothpaste tube. The analogy to extrusion applies in each case. Furthermore, for one looking into the subject of "extrusion" the existence of a rhetorical analogy for the process would seem to be a relevant and illuminating fact to include. It's only a "see also" so it really not a big deal. Did you just look at it and think its a joke? It's colorful, but I didn't mean it as a joke, but rather as useful. I had similar experiences with garbage heap of history as well. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't think it was a joke, I can see that it's a legit article. I also understand that toothpaste is "extruded" out of a toothpaste tube. My problem is the "see also" section isn't the place to place every example of extrusion. Moreover, this link is only refers to "extrusion" in the figurative sense. As such, there absolutely no place for it. If anything were to be done it would have to be listed as a hatnote or put on a disambiguation page, but I don't even think it deserves that. Instead, I recommend you create a redirect out of extrusion theory or extrusion theories. Wizard191 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I have been doing a lot of work organizing articles under the theories category. I can tell you that I will not be creating any "extrusion theories" article, redirect, disambig, hatnote or category any time soon. That all sounds quite dramatic. It seems to me you have a very definite and narrow view of what the proper role of the "see also" section is, which I do not share at all. Apparently you are completely unmoved by the fact that there exist rhetorical and figurative applications of extrusion. That is fine, however, please consider others who may be, an do not limit their experience to your experience. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My problem is that you are trying to apply the term "extrude" to your theories, but the theories aren't about the process of extrusion. The article states: "This is intended as an analogy to the fact that pressure built up in some finite bounded system needs to be released somewhere or the system will break." It is about "release", not "extrusion". It just so happens that some call the release of toothpaste from a toothpaste tube "extrusion", but it could also be termed "expulsion", "ejection", "discharge", "purging", or just "release". Why don't you add the link to the see also section of those articles? Moreover, the reason the toothpaste expels from the tube is because of a build up of pressure, therefore you should add the link there and to all of its similar terms. Why not breaking, failure, or rupturing? The theory just borrows a easily understandable and tangible example, the toothpaste tube, to explain the idea quoted above; it has nothing to do with the process of extrusion. Wizard191 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay you are now being very puzzling. I checked every single one of those links. Almost all of them are disambiguation pages without any main article about, for instance "ejection, discharge, etcetera" in general. There is an article about "purge." However that concept is not what the toothpaste tube theory is describing. The toothpaste tube theory describes extrusion exactly. Furthermore, the lack of an appropriate alternative only strengthens the case that it is most closely described as extrusion.
 * It seems you have gone through a lot of trouble thinking about this. Like I said, the toothpaste tube theory describes extrusion exactly. Your alternatives are universally weaker, if not completely inappropriate. At this point I am wondering about what motivates such efforts.
 * I think it is possible that you see the article as a "physics" article and cannot bear to include any interdisciplinary observations in it? That isn't really an appropriate way to go about a publically editable, general use encyclopedia. I had asked you not to limit it to your view of things. Seeing the connections between things is a measure of intelligence. I would like WP to be as intelligent as possible. Be well, and say, ... let it go man. Think of others. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, no personal attacks.
 * Second, you completely missed my point. It doesn't matter if "expulsion", "ejection", "discharge", "purging", or "release" are disambiguation pages. You are wanting to add the toothpaste tube theory link to the extrusion article because one sentence in your article states that toothpaste "extrudes" from the toothpaste tube. My point is that you could have used any one of the words above to describe the release of the toothpaste from the bottle. Based on your argument, these theories that "act" like an "extrusion" also equally act like the "expulsion" of toothpaste from a toothpaste tube.
 * Third, it's somewhat sketchy to describe it an extrusion process, as the goal of the packaging is to contain the toothpaste until it's ready to be dispensed and then conveniently allows you to do that by pressing anywhere on the tube. The goal of the opening is to just release the toothpaste, not form it into a specific shape. Do you want to know why it's round in shape? It's because it's the easiest and cheapest to manufacture. As such, I don't even think it's proper to classify it as an extrusion process.
 * Finally, I am completely open to interdisciplinary concepts, but this is not interdisciplinary. This is you trying to stretch a analogy way too far. Please re-read your sentence from your article: "This is intended as an analogy to the fact that pressure built up in some finite bounded system needs to be released somewhere or the system will break." That's what the article is about, it's not about extrusion.
 * If you want to continue this debate, please stop using empty arguments like: "The toothpaste tube theory describes extrusion exactly. Furthermore, the lack of an appropriate alternative only strengthens the case that it is most closely described as extrusion." You don't explain why it exactly describes extrusion or directly disprove my argument. Wizard191 (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Empirical
Hey Gregbard. A theorem is definitely not empirical, by its very nature. A theorem is not based on experience or data - instead it is proved. I noticed the change you made over at Theorem. What is your thesis on this point? Removing the distinction between the deductive nature of a theorem and empirical conclusions takes away from the lead IMO. Tparameter (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC


 * Greetings T, I am always glad to hear from you. We have had some pleasant discussions. However, I think you know me. I'm not very diplomatic sometimes, and I am quite frustrated with talking to mathematicians about theorem especially. To me it is like talking to religious believers.


 * When I re-read this line, "The concept of a theorem is therefore fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical." My impression is that someone who thinks they know what they are talking about really has shown that they don't.


 * First of all, how is it that we are comparing scientific theories with logical/mathematical theorems at all in the first place? The first paragraph already states that a theory is comprised of statements which are called elementary theorems. Furthermore, there do exists non-empirical theories which stand in the same relation to theorems as empirical ones. So therefore the sentence really just does more to confuse the reader than clarify (and this is probably because its author doesn't really understand what a theorem is fundamentally, and apparently not a theory either.)


 * It is true that the concept of a theorem is fundamentally deductive, and that is stated already earlier in the lead. However, "deductive" isn't really a contrast with "empirical" beacuse they are concepts that deal with totally different aspects of theorem which are just not usefully compared or contrasted.


 * If you feel strongly that some response to empiricism be made in the lead, I would challenge you to research and write in detail about the "quasi-empirical" nature of theorems. However, I think that might be a little advanced for the group to deal with. I have tried to emphasize the fact that theoremhood is fundamentally about dividing sense from nonsense, rather than about "truth" and "proof." I have been universally reverted in that attempt.


 * This demonstrates very clearly to me that the group is failing to understand theorem at a fundamental level. My last exchange with Hardy about the first two sentences was polite, however, he ended the discussion by merely re-stating his religious belief that 'theorems are statements that are proven, period.' That's what religious believers do, in the face of obvious contrary evidence (i.e., the FS example on the talk page) they just immediately go back to their belief and just state it more strongly. So there is no getting through at all.


 * I think the lead paragraph of theorem should not be talking about empirical theories, without talking about theories in general, including non-empirical theories. Jumping to talk about empirical theories, to me demonstrates a limited understanding.


 * If you get what I am saying about dividing sense from nonsense as the fundamental quality of theorems as opposed to "truth" or "proof," please help the article out by one simple edit: exchange the first and second sentences of the article. Really that's all I ask at this point.


 * Be well, T. Stay cool. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose you're thinking of the philosophical concept of empiricism. However, the first definition of 'empirical' at dictionary.com is probably more common - "derived from or guided by experience or experiment". Theorems are not derived from or guided by experience or experiment. The reason I think this is an important point, is because nowadays people harp about "scientific consensus", suggesting "there is no debate" about things like global warming and the like. Yet, these things are not proven. Instead they may have mountains of empirical data to support the consensus, but this does not PROVE anything. In contrast, a theorem is proved. Finished. It's over. It's accepted, given the axioms/definitions/etc. Do you see what I mean? I'm simply talking about the difference between the conclusions one can make with an experiment versus deduction. Either way, as you can see, I'm not reverting or edit-warring. I've got better things to do. ;] Tparameter (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just thinking - perhaps you think that "empirical" may be misleading as a term by itself. Maybe it would be better to say explicitly that theorems are not derived from "empirical data", or from experiment. Something like that... Tparameter (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * UGGGH! T, there is so much that needs to be addressed here. Aye yae aye aye aye!


 * Okay, first of all... this "philosophical concept of empiricism" you speak of... is this, in your mind, somehow different than some other concept of it? If so how? You really are unclear on "philosophy." The issue of demarcation is not a simple one, but it is largely semantic and therefore very unimportant. It seems mathematicians take great pains to segregate themselves from what they believe about "philosophy."


 * It would seem to be a way to frustrate any intellectual conversation in any field: "Oh you just mean the 'philosophical' version of that theory, that's totally different, so it doesn't matter." Part of the job of a logician is to actually be the person who says clearly: "Don't think that way!" So here I am doing my duty to say to you please, do not think that way.


 * Empiricism is the "philosophical" epistemological theory (YOU, yes YOUR epistemological theory. Please don't say you are not a philosopher or epistemologist. Yes, in this regard, you are.) that one only comes to know the truth of a statement by sense experience and observation. This is to say that an empirical theory is a set of statements (elementary theorems), each one of which describes a true observable fact. If even one statement of the theory is non-empirical (i.e. not an observable fact, but rather only an idea), then the theory is non-empirical. This is the mistake that "creation scientists" make. Their theory is non-empirical, but they erroneously try to portray it as empirical. Please observe that in the case of empirical theories we are interpreting observation as the way to derive the theorem. In this sense also, theorems fundamentally are derived (not proved). This seems to me that is should really be a convincing truth supporting my on-going claim that theorems most primarily are derived, not proven.


 * I agree fundamentally with you that we need to make things clear in the terminology so we can speak intelligently about global warming and creationists, etcetera. You are correct in that, theories in general, and therefore global warming, and evolution are not "proven", they are only strongly supported by their many theorems. However, the issue here is not empiricism. It's deduction versus induction. I think this is the main confusion about the deleted sentence. Scientific theories are always "deductive theories." They follow some deductive system. In fact, the axioms of such a system can be thought of as the initial set of theorems in the theory. However, the statement which the theory is supposed to explain is only arrived at by inductive reasoning. I.e., if the car started when I turned the key yesterday, and the day before, and the day before, etcetera; then it is reasonable to believe it will start today. The key there is induction, not empiricism.


 * Largely my point is that there isn't really any important distinction between empirical and non-empirical theories as far as the theorem article is concerned. However, I do think that the empirical v non-empirical distinction is important to consider in the theory article.


 * Another issue to address is the quasi-empirical nature of theorem. You state at the outset "A theorem is definitely not empirical, by its very nature." Oh really? Isn't it true that it is a product of the syntax of some language?! That last time I checked a language was observable. In fact, each symbol of the language is observable, and we are able to move the observable symbols around according to rules (which also can be expressed in language) so as to derive theorems which are also observable. This interpretation of things is especially true if you are a scientific materialist it would seem. It's not as simple as you portray it, that's for sure.


 * Do you want to know what a theorem is? Don't read the article, read this: A theorem is a string of symbols which are such that they make sense in some system. The theorem is the bare minimum of what we can say makes sense, rather than is nonsense. In the universe of strings of symbols we can broadly distinguish between those which are nonsense, and those which make some kind of sense. The ones that make sense only make sense within some system. This is consistent with the logical view that there is no "truth" that floats out there, but rather there is only truth within some system. So a theorem isn't about "truth" or being "proven." They are derived within some system, and there exists some derivation whose last line is the theorem in question. The ontological status of theorems depend on your metaphysical view. They are either:


 * A) entirely physical objects (monist materialist)
 * B) they are both ideas and physical objects (dualist)
 * C) they are entirely ideas (monist idealist)


 * However, metaphysical views are irrelevant to logicians, and people of differing views are still able to treat theorems the same way. We are able to use language as a way to describe reality. This is what theorems do.


 * The distinction between empirical theorems (statements which correspond to some observable fact of the world) and non-empirical ones (non-empirical truths/ideas/analytic statements/etc) is really more relevant to the theory article. Interestingly, there is a section in the theory article describing "inter-theoretic reduction and elimination." According to that section, if you have a theory whose theorems can be reduced to the theorems of a second one, then the second one "is more correct." This would seem to be yet another convincing truth supporting my on-going claim that the article should portray theorems as primarily derived, not proven. Because it is more correct.


 * Be well, I hope we get some productive content for the article out of the discussion. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There are different definitions for "empiricism", as well as for "empirical". So, when you ask, "this 'philosophical concept of empiricism' you speak of... is this, in your mind, somehow different than some other concept of it?" The answer is yes. Dictionary.com has one definition of "empiricism" that says, "Philosophy. the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience."

So, let's be clear, I'm not talking about the philosophical doctrine of empiricism. You deleted the sentence, "The concept of a theorem is therefore fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical."

In this context, "empirical" simply means derived from experiment, or the like - with no abstract philosophical meaning. Very simply, theorems are not derived from data derived from experiments, i.e. empirical data.

Glad to see you active again. Now take a deep breath. Tparameter (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added another few sentences about induction before your last edit. I think that is the real issue here. I think you are still comparing apples to oranges with that sentence. You are completely incorrect about there being different definitions, and to the degree that there is any difference, it is the job of philosophers and logicians to formulate the correct definitions, not people in other fields. Please reflect on it. Deep breath is good. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your statements: 'You state at the outset "A theorem is definitely not empirical, by its very nature." Oh really? Isn't it true that it is a product of the syntax of some language?! That last time I checked a language was observable.'

This makes clear that you may not understand the basic difference between the scientific method and rigor. You are clearly equating the two by characterizing a theorem as something based on empirical evidence - and unbelievably you do so because of the use of language!!! Wow. Greg, my friend, you are caught in a semantic trap. So, now, we cannot even use pure logic and be rigorous, ostensibly because it is still based on empirical evidence - symbols!

Step back, count to ten, have a shot of Wild Turkey, go for a walk, and then get back to me. ;) You're one or two levels too abstract for this discussion.

BTW, how's the weather in Chico? Great town. Tparameter (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No T, you have mish-mashed things yourself. I am perfectly aware of the difference between a logical theorem which is derived from the rules and symbols of a language, and an elementary theorem of an empirical theory which is derived from having been observed (i.e. like an instance of turning the key in a car, which individually supports the conclusion that the car starts when you turn the key). The point that I was trying to make is that logic can be considered "quasi-empirical" and that things are not as simple as you have portrayed them. You are unclear on "quasi-empirical." Furthermore, if you read closely you will notice that I haven't said I have bought into any particular view on quasi-empiricism. I am merely bringing up the question, and the objections associated with it, and you are hostile to that idea, and that's fine. However, you should actually look into it a little first before characterizing.


 * Furthermore "scientific method" itself is irrelevant to this particular discussion (if we focus, that is). A scientific theory has theorems, each of which is a statement describing an observable fact, and which together support the conclusion which the theory is trying to explain. T:{t1,t2,t3,.....tn},C where T is the theory, t 1 through n are each events where the key turned and started the car, and C is the statement "When you turn the key the next time it is reasonable to believe the car will start." You should observe that the members of T are such that they are consistent with each other and can be thought of as axioms of a deductive system. Furthermore the set T also contains every statement that is a logical consequence of any one or more members, etcetera. That is the "deductive" nature of scientific theories. However, scientific theories are inductive in that the conclusion which is to be explained by the theory C is only arrived at because each theorem individually supports ("merely" supports I should say, not "proves") the conclusion, and therefore by induction, if t1 supports conclusion C, and t2 supports conclusion C, and t3 supports conclusion C, etcetera, well then by induction it is reasonable to believe C. At no point does anyone care about empiricism in this discussion. Do you know why? Because the whole thing is perfectly applicable to non-empirical theorems (and therefore non-empirical theories) equally. Inserting "empirical" into the discussion has the appearance that you are unaware of this. I think the inductive/deductive issues are far more relevant to the theorem article than empiricism.

You are quite frustrating, but there is no need to project any additional frustration onto the situation, so I think I'll pass on the Wild Turkey thanks much. Chico has perfect weather as always. You may be quite interested in exploring this:. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, "quasi-empirical" != empirical. All the best! Tparameter (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Dear Greg,

I've been noticing your kind attention to bringing new stubs into the fold of WP:Phil. Thank you for this thankless, trivial but vital work.

I notice from the above that you are more diplomatic than you claim. May I encourage you as you persevere with clarifying awfully tricky distinctions in technical articles, with editors who come from all over the place, with a variety of backgrounds. I can see that it is simply not true that "hard science" articles at Wiki are somehow immune to the sorts of issues that arise in more touchy-feely and controversial areas.

The interactivity of Wikipedia strikes me as a key feature of its educational value. A little opaquely, this may be more so for discussion participants seeking to personalise explanation of topic issues for those less familiar with the material.

I trust that once I have a network of key ideas stubbed I'll be able to make a fist of describing those topics for a very broad audience. I expect it to be an interesting and educational challenge.

Very best, Harold Philby (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your last note from me
Hi! A week or so ago, you wrote (Talk:Logic:
 * Be well, Charles, I am sorry I still haven't responded to your last note to me. I do always think quite a bit about what I'm going to write back to you. I haven't forgotten, believe it or not! Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

...which is alethically certain to refer to my post at User_talk:Gregbard/Archive_1. I took over a year to reply to your original post, so three months is not beginning to be slow by the standards of this conversation! &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Eschatology
hi, ivé made Apocalypticism in it at the christian part, but the problem is, is that i i am an christian and i don't want to read about muslim and budha things. but it is fair to keep it in the template you see. so i hope that someone else will add it.

and i'll see of there is a possibility to add an 'common' tab to it

--Allstrak (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Hooker Oak.png
File:Hooker Oak.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Hooker Oak.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics
Hi. Maybe you want to tell your opinion concerning my Sheffer operator diagrams on the Mathmatics Project page. (You are not the only one, who's contributions remain unclear to CBM.) Greetings, Lipedia (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

CFD query
I left a question on Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_1 where it occurs to me that you may be well placed to propose a precise name? AllyD (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing backlinks to Consistency because ...?
You've made a lot of edits with summary Removing backlinks to Consistency because ""; using TW. Care to fill in the empty quotes? I'm not at all clear why you've removed all these links. Thanks, Qwfp (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Index of metaphysics articles
Hello, You recently reverted an edit I made to Index of metaphysics articles; I removed Realism which is a disambiguation page, the term Philosophical realism is in the index and is more appropriate to this article. I'm going to take it back out, if you think I am wrong in doing so please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks J04n(talk page) 03:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Flipism
There's a category Fictional philosophies? Amazing. Thanks for adding that. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Stan

Theories
Greg, What on earth was this for? History falls under neither science nor philosophy! In general, far too many articles are being added at the top level, when suitable sub-cats exist (in which the article is often already placed). Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a breath for a second and I will explain. (You may still chose to rearrange things after my explanation, as I don't think things are perfect either). As far as theories go, the most important distinction to make after "strongly supported" and "weakly supported" (neither of which will ever be Wikipedia categories) is "empirical" and "non-empirical." I had proposed that the "philosophical theories" be renamed "non-empirical" recently but it failed to reach consensus, and it also seemed as though people had accepted the whole idea that "philosophical" will cover "non-empirical" without much difficulty.


 * In that regard "theories of history" range from ones which are quite rigorous as in historiography, and attempt to base their theories on observation rather than speculation. This is what is commonly called "soft science", and in that regard is very similar to "economic theories" or "psychological theories." However, there are also "theories of history" which do not adhere to much scientific rigor, but rather are based on some speculation (ideas that is, not sense-data). In that regard history, which is considered one of the humanities, is philosophical.


 * I do appreciate your question, as "theories of history" was a difficult one to deal with. Again, I agree with you on overcat! (I repeat: we agree!!) I am not interested in a full top level category, and there are "diffusion" templates which I placed and observe. HOWEVER, I did ask to suspend immediatism, and I think you do not understand what I mean. Give me about a week (no later than say next Tuesday) and articles which can be diffused will be. However I want to see what diffusion is necessary and possible first. It isn't enough that the article is somewhere/anywhere in the category tree, it has to be accessible to people browsing through various theories.


 * I repeat: I am aware that there are cases where an article is in category X and so is another parent category. I am aware that this is not desirable long term. However there are cases where it is difficult to find such articles among the theories because they are buried deep in the structure. Those will work themselves out. Furthermore, by doing this we are making it possible to diffuse them in a different way than is possible now. If you practice immediatism we will never be able to do things differently, if that turns out to be better. I'm not even saying it will for sure, however the process will reveal its own needs. If I can't see what we have I can't respond to it.


 * I always invite questions as to my rationale. I think it will help in the long run. However you also should trust that I know what I'm doing with the theories, as I have been dealing with them for a long time. It took me a long time to realize what was going in this area, I have figured out at least a few things along the way.


 * I think we should cut things down to "theories" and "movements" and get rid of all the other "views," "schools," and "ideologies" and several others altogether. Its WAY too many! We don't need them, and they are causing articles to get lost in the tree. Perhaps a year from now we will both see things differently. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will lay off further moves for now, but I have say this plan does not seem to reflect the normal classifications within the subjects, which is what the category scheme should follow. The record of the ones that have come to Cfd so far does not suggest that trust will get you very far with the rest of the community, and the lower down the trees you go the more this will be the case.  In the case of history, drawing distinctions between "observation rather than speculation" is surely wholly subjective and ultimately not useful as a distinction in categories - a reader might think a speculative theory is observed, or just not know, and look for it in the wrong place.  I don't think it is a good idea to make moves ahead of what is a major rename, if they don't work on the current names, which was surely the case here.  It would be better to come to Cfd and explain your proposals in advance. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)


 * I have left a long comment at WP:ANI that you may want to respond to. --Hans Adler 20:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks
hi greg, thanks for the thanks. Could you setup the barebones philosophy of religion template from your other templates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.209.209.129 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will soon look setting up the a whole philosophy of religion template... but I haven't really taken a long look at it yet like I have with science, language and mind. I think we really need to look into dividing out "Religious philosophy" and "Philosophy of religion." I haven't looked closely enough at that, so I don't know how much work it will take.


 * I have, however settled on the whole concepts, theories, philosophers and related articles section setup as a good one. In the future I see them expanded to include "literature". I'll set up a bare bones one for now: Template:Philosophy of religion. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

template proof
Per What links here, Proof is not actually used in any articles as a logical symbol, but is only included in articles related to Proof (rapper). Is there a reason this template should not be changed over as attempted? --Pascal666 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason? Well you can do whatever you want, but the "proof" template was set up so that articles in logic would have a standard way to express "x is a proof of y" first. It has been listed in the standards for notation for some time.The rap version of proof should have chosen another address. I did revert it with that explanation at the time. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * removed proof from WikiProject Logic/Standards for notation with an edit summary of "rm weird nonstandard notation. These are both denoted using \vdash." in this edit. If you disagree with EmilJ and would like to relist it, please do so and I will create a new template for the rapper and change over all of the articles.  Otherwise this template is currently unused as a logic template, and not being listed at Standards for notation makes it unlikely to be used for that purpose in the future.  --Pascal666 00:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is need consultation
Please, Help to translate in to russian "Theory of mind" --Aia philosophia (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)