User talk:Husserl08

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Dynaflow  babble  00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Would you take a look at an article I've been copyediting?
It's one of those articles about an academic philosopher, Nathan Salmon. He meets notability criteria, but has had some puffery removed from his article that's unrelated to his notability as an academic philosopher (this seems to be in keeping with the policies of the Biography project). There are no secondary sources on his page, so basically there are "weasel words" (Salmon is known for X) and so forth. He points out (rightly) that I don't have a background in philosophy and therefore shouldn't be doing more work on the article. There's been a request for expert attention for quite some time, but the article is ranked low in importance on the Philosophy project. Still, of all the living academic philosophers I've come across on Wikipedia, his article (partly self-edited) is quite lengthy and looks like a mid-level article, even if people have ranked it low. I've tried to change the article a bit so that instead of saying "Salmon has successfully argued against Kant" on such and such a point, it simply says, "Salmon argues against Kant." Someone else was already pursuing this course of action with the article. But I would have no way of knowing if Salmon even does that much and have asked for in-line citations. If you get a chance, could you weigh in on the discussion page as to whether the article still reads as non-neutral? Thanks for any help you can give.Levalley (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)