User talk:KSchutte

I think it sucks when people block dynamic IP addresses. KSchutte 28 June 2005 17:27 (UTC)

If there are any really good Philosophy talk pages of which I'm not aware, please let me know. KSchutte 5 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)

NBA Rosters
Sorry if it sounded like I wasn't happy with the template, but some creative feedback never hurts. Anyway, I love the way they just brighten up the largley boring team pages, and hopefully every team will have them soon enough. Harro5 06:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * No worries. I appreciate constructive criticism. KSchutte 15:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject Aesthetics
No problem. Even having a second name on the project is double previous progress! --Slac 21:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Requesting comments on template alteration
Hello. I see you are using one or more of the User instruments templates in your Babel box. Inspired by some recent developments, I want to rework all the templates in there (including ones used on user pages), to make them more like the regular Babel templates. However, I thought I should hear from the people this would affect before actually doing it. Please weigh in at User:Ddawson/User instruments. Ddawson 11:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls
Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales to Attend San Diego Meetup on October 18 2005
Hello, Jimbo Wales will be in San Diego to attend OOPSLA and has agreed to come by and visit with the San Diego wikipedians. If you are interested, you will find more info on my talk page. Johntex\talk 00:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
No caffeine. Just the blues (nasty breakup). I'll get over it. Go for it! 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Science
Please consider joining the proposed History of Science Wikiproject--ragesoss 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of neuroscience
Dear Kevin,

I'm an undergraduate student of philosophy (with a growing interest in philosophy of mind and cognitive sciences) and after reading your userpage I felt compelled to ask you for a little help, if you don't mind. Would you point out to me the best online references on the philosophy of neuroscience that you have met so far? Thank you in advance! Porcher 02:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested template
The template you requested has been created as &#123;{Academia}}. --CBDunkerson 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! KSchutte 15:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pages up for deletion
There are two pages up for deletion: Revolution within the form and WHEELER 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about these things, so I will abstain. KSchutte 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy
The main problem that I can see with the philosophy article is that it is an article on the history of philosophy!! The section on branches of philosophy should be vastly expanded, there should be a discussion of the relationship of philosophy with modern science and perhaps religion, so as to illustrate the connections and contrasts. But this would mean that the whole article has to be rewritten. I think there was consensus against this or something.--Lacatosias 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, for some reason they think chipping away at what is there is going to be better than any rewrite from scratch, and they seem to be against a total rewrite in principle. As near as I can tell, you are one of only a very few involved in this debate (other than myself) who has any idea how to show what philosophy is.  As is the state of nature, I suppose, the loudest and most chatty have absolutely no idea what they're doing.  Here is my rewrite in progress, and if you'd be willing to support it when I'm finished with it, that wold be appreciated.  KSchutte 16:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it as soon as I get the chance.   Kripkenstein and I managed to work out a similar problem on the dualism (philosophy of mind) page. It was complete chaos with POV warnings and proposals for merger. We wrote up a version from scratch and just posted it in place of the other. It's far from perfect, but it hasn't been touched in about two weeks (now that's pretty stable!!). It seems to be  the only way to do it: write a solid version and impose it.--Lacatosias 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still working on it, and probably won't be done for another couple of weeks, so no rush. KSchutte 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can definitely support the framework and much of the substance of what you are proposing. It would represent a huge step in the right direction. So far as I can tell, it avoids the major defect of the current version: it is not a f+++ing history of philosophy article and it doesn't get bogged down in terminological nonsense. I have some reservations about the intro, but fundamentally I see where you're trying to go with this, that is provide the reader with some idea of what philosophy does and how it works. It's an interesting and original approach, based on methods mostly. My major concern though is that you have a history section at the end which seems to leave open the possibility of more historical-inflationism by suggesting that each period of history will be defined by its methods, goals, and so on. This could end up being huge and worse than the present version. I would strongly urge that history needs to be dealt with very summarily and then linked to the main article. But my overall impression is positive. Good work!!--Lacatosias 09:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've gotten extremely tired (yes, already!!) of the nonsense on the talk page. From now on, I will discuss this case individually with yourself or others who seem to be quite serious about improving the article or I will just edit the article directly as I think appropriate. --Lacatosias 09:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the positive feedback. I'm in agreement with you that the people who give regular feedback over there are missing the point, and I've lost patience with trying to enlighten anyone.  (An occassional person chimes in with the right idea, but most people with the right idea don't have the patience to tolerate the subsequent abuse.)  I think this whole article turns on the Basic methods section, and once I feel comfortable with that, I think the rest of the article can be tinkered and toyed with at our discretion (the other areas aren't so important.


 * Let me do a little work on the history seection right now to let you know what I had in mind to put there. I think once you see where I'm aiming, you won't mind so much. KSchutte 16:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Of the people chiming in over there, I suggest we invite WhiteC, Shaggorama, and Simonides to come help out. They seem to recognize good changes and good ideas and would be helpful. (Rodasmith maybe, too, but I'm not as familiar with him.)

I also suggest that once we finish, we should get feedback from Mel Etitis and Dbuckner. These two seem to know quite a bit about philosophy, but they seem to resist certain changes to articles that are helpful and productive. I think they could recognize a good article if they saw it, but might not be so much help producing it.

The rest of the people over there are just "kids" or n00bs to philosophy, and ought not be listened to very much. KSchutte 17:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Part of the reason I am confused about the situation with this article right now, in fact, is that there now seem to be two fora for discussion (the talk page and Shaggorama's subpage), or three if you want to count this discussion. If you can get at least some of these other people involved, I can get an idea of what direction this article is really going in and might be able to help out. Let's get agreement on this pageor on Shaggorama's for a general outline at the very least. I don't know any of these people at all well (I've only been woking on the 'pedia for about two months and have been splitting my time between a whole bunch of areas). But I share your general view about who should be consulted, who are the "kids" playing around, etc..

--Lacatosias 12:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody! I'm a pessimist about big articles such as philosophy (or meaning; just check the last changes since two weeks ago). They are overedited, overdiscussed and get too "democratic". But I guess I would vote for Kevin's new article. Velho 02:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, Velho. I used to think that way, but I'm not so sure any more. I've actually made only two significant edits to that article: I deleted all the lists and nonsense from the bottom (no complaints or opposition arose) and just this morning I deleted the

definition section and rewrote the lead to include a as general and widely accepted a definition of philosophy as possible (I'm waiting to see the reaction to this last move). If it goes through, there may be hope still for such a broad article to be salvaged. In any case, I have publicly stated my own preference for K's version. It may be necessary, however, to introduce any radical changes one step at a time. When you get to that stage, let me know and we'll explain and defend every significant change on the talk page.--Lacatosias 10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, we're a good ways away from making that decision. I've still got plenty of work left to do before we even try to move it over there. KSchutte 07:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Philosophy of mind
Any comments by someone as knowledgable as yourself would certainly be appreciated. --Lacatosias 19:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Žižek comment
Y'know... Slavoj Whoever :-). Contemporary continental philosophy really ain't so bad.  But apart from trying to lure you to "the dark side" of the philosophy discipline (or maybe away from the dark side, YMMV), I appreciate your comment on the philosophy project that is exactly to my way of thinking.  I wanted to give you a bit of context that you may have missed though.

In general, I believe as you do that an academic biography, especially of a contemporary figure, should present the basic facts of where the thinker went to school, where s/he teaches, what books s/he has written, and from there some general description of what her/his contributions to philosophy are (or to another discipline, the same general idea applies). Criticisms, if they occur at all, should be limited to a few sentences, maybe a paragraph at most. It's not so much different even for a historical figure; I don't want the David Hume article filled with everything everyone disagreed with Hume about either. But obviously some particularly notable historical figures: Hegel, Marx, Aristotle, etc. have launched whole "schools", within which many disagreements exist, and those can be discussed in an encyclopedic fashion.

As the Žižek article existed at the time I wrote my initial call for outside comments to the philosophy wiki project, there were six or seven paragraphs of "Critique". All the critics presented are perfectly respectable members of the philosophy profession (though none particularly notable on their own merits, most don't have WP articles), but a WP bio isn't the place to reproduce everything that goes on in contemporary philosophy journals. In the meanwhile, however, I refactored the long criticism section into a separate article, and left just a concise paragraph introducing the idea that such criticism exists. Doing that seemed less likely to provoke the worst edit warring, and the criticism isn't inherently unencyclopedic, it just isn't notable in the context of an article on Slavoj Žižek himself (per the desiderata mentioned above). I'm not sure it succeeded given the flamefest by the anti-Žižek folks, but I suppose it might have been still worse.

So while I don't think Critiques of Slavoj Žižek needs to exist as an article, it doesn't seem to me unencyclopedic for it to exist, as such (given, of course, that the material in it meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and so on, which it pretty much seems to). There are lots of articles that I do not think need to exist: articles on some character in a video game, for example. But not great harm is done by a slightly superfluous article, as long as it is written in an objective fashion.

All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Santa Barbara Meetup
Hello Kevin. Since you're a participant in WikiProject Santa Barbara County, I thought you might be interested in the Santa Barbara Wikipedia Meetup on Saturday 8 April. Please see that page for details. I hope to meet you there! Angela. 10:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox
Category:Unsolved problems in philosophy

Thanks
Thanks for joining me in the Philosophy of Langage project. I just realized I had forgotten to put the page on my watchlist, so I just assumed it had been completely ignored. But I see you have taken the time to post some articles that need attention and topics that haven't been addressed. Thanks. This gives me some idea of the particular areas that I can focus on instead of fumbling around randomly looking for dead links and so on.--Lacatosias 07:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Substance nihilism
I'm curious, when you say 'substance nihilism', do you mean mereological nihilism? Or is it completely unrelated?--Laplace&#39;s Demon 00:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Prometheanism
I've put this article up for deletion. As someone who has worked with this article before, you may wish to weigh in.--Rosicrucian 14:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

re New Criteria
I wanted to leave a note and apologise for trumpeting your mention of bias in the criteria for the list of major philosophers. It is tough to reconcile different ways of seeing things even when people are being honest. And there are one or two individuals that put their personal agenda ahead of honesty. So when I saw an honest evaluation of the proposed methodology I quickly picked it up the bias part and started using it like a club. What I should have done was just say, "Thanks" and then, "let's see if we can find ways to offset those biases." Much earlier, you poked good-natured fun at yourself for being the kind of person that would entire all those numbers of columns in a spreadsheet. I got a big grin over that - cuz it sounded so much like me. I appreciate the work you've done and I'll focus more on making an objective criteria work. SteveWolfer 18:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Academic
What was the purpose you contemplate for Template:Academic? I have proposed using in the manner described at Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision. Fred Bauder 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see by looking at the history that it was intended to designate academic influence, but that you seem to have abandoned it. Please contact me if I have preempted something. Besides, I have to line up support for what I am doing, and may fail to do so. Fred Bauder 21:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC on SteveWolfer
Message posted on multiple user pages: as you've been a figure to some degree in the multi-article, Rand-related dispute involving SteveWolfer, I thought it would be appropriate to let you know that I've initiated an RFC on him. You are invited to join in the proceedings if you are so inclined. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the talk page of the RfC - the one on Respect for sources. I wanted to let you know that it touched me to see that. And encouraged me to stay civil even when I feel like I'm under siege. So, without regard to our different positions on things, I respect that kind of integrity. Steve 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know it's hard to keep a level head in these kinds of "wars". You should've seen how frustrated I got over at philosophy last year sometime.  Its easier to be objective when one isn't involved in the conflict. KSchutte 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I added comments here and there on the RfC that make clear that you weren't part of the accusations against those who brought that RfC. Simoes has pulled out and withdrawn his certification of the RfC (presumably after reading my reply to the 'evidence').


 * And, an anon user deleted Rand from the 20th century philosopy page. I put her back, but I wanted you to know that it in response to a deletion and that I put sources on the list page and comments on the talk page.  Take a look and see you can tolerate that, or want something different? Steve 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, that just makes it look silly. I'm removing the references.  The main reason I deleted her from that page on that occassion was because you darn Randians didn't even put her in the right chronological order, and I was annoyed by that.  I'd say that that page is a lot like List of publications in philosophy and Timeline of Western philosophers.  Rand's presence is probably not acceptable by standards of objectivity, but shoring up the list with a good many more figures might make it acceptable. KSchutte 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, it makes me more than a little irritated to suffer through that stupid RfC being accused of not using cites properly. Then you just delete the sources, call them silly and offer no help at all.  Let's be real clear on this.  When entries are disputed they must be given sources - that is what I've been told - that's what WP policy says.  I will not be treated to RfC's for not sourcing (when I did but on the talk pages) and then have sources deleted when I do put them on the page.  If you want to encourage civility, avoid edit wars, help others become better editors - you are going the wrong direction. I came to your page out of courtesy and for help - I don't feel like that's what I received. Steve 02:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that sources are good, but only if they don't stand out in a ridiculous fashion. Sources for lists should be done in ways similar to those I've done on the List of philosophers born in the twentieth century and similar pages.  Giving sources for one entry and not the others just brings EVEN MORE attention to the person on the list who everyone is disputing whether she even belongs in the first place.  She should be getting less attention, not more, than the others. KSchutte 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your point about standing out (no other name having a source), and for that page it may not matter (depending upon the AfD results). But, if the AfD fails and for other lists, I will have no choice but to add a source for Rand if she is deleted and I don't have the time to research all the others on a list.  I will try to a format that doesn't stand out as much.  Thanks, Steve 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mouse hint
Thanks for the note about the mouse spin wheel and the ctrl function ! --Childhood&#39;s End 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad you found it! KSchutte 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vindication of the Rights of Woman
I noticed that on the talk page of the VRW you directed people to the Wollstonecraft page's "summary" of the VRW. I recently finished writing that Wollstonecraft page and, being a little burned out on Wollstonecraft, moved on to other pages for a while. But I have recently been reminded by several people that the VRW page is in dire straits. Would you be interested in collaborating on that page? Awadewit 12:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have managed to write the page now and it is up for GAC. Perhaps you would be willing to review it? The more informed and interested reviewers, the better! Thanks. Awadewit 11:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics in philosophy
Thanks for the redirects to the missing topics page - Skysmith 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007
The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Characteristica Universalis
Hi KSchutte. I noticed you gave the Characteristica Universalis article a B rating. Could you please explain the reasoning for this rating further on the discussion page of the article. Sholto Maud 03:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please take no insult. I've been rating philosophy articles since the Philosophy Assessment came online about a month ago, and I haven't wanted to give anything higher than a B-class for a couple of reasons. 1) I don't really understand the point of the A-class, and 2) Both GA-class and FA-class involves a review and my mission at present is only to identify and tag philosophy articles, leaving nomination for a later date (or for others to do). If you think the article should be listed as a Good or Featured article (and would like the editorial comments such a nomination provides), I recommend that you nominate the article yourself. If, counter to my assumptions, you think I've graded the article too high, feel free to lower the class of the article as you see fit. - KSchutte 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sholto_Maud"


 * No insult taken - I'm more curious. I looked at the philosophy of worth/value assessment a few years ago, and it seemed to be very difficult to be "objective" when making any assessment, or when selecting ranking criteria for the value of philosphical thought & any writing about such. Hence my conclusion was that one could never adopt a neutral point of view in philosophy assessment. Do you know how Philosophy Assessment has managed to work with such isssues? Sholto Maud 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is very difficult to be objective (what teacher could deny that?), so I admittedly haven't tried to take it too seriously. Mostly, I think the grading system is good for only a few things. First, it helps one to find articles related to one's area of interest that at least some people have read and found to be worth reading (Good and Featured articles). Next, it helps the editors keep track of relevant articles. There are, I'm sure, hundreds of philosophy-related articles out there that haven't been tagged, and when they are tagged, it is easier for potentially-interested editors to find them. Finally, I think the stub-classification is pretty useful. These are articles for which there is very little doubt that it needs a large amount of improvement, and I think exhibiting recognition of this fact makes philosophers on wikipedia look better to those who might otherwise misjudge us on the basis of our really bad articles. Really, though, because most articles are bad and even fewer cite any sources, the issues you raise haven't really come up. Sure, some of it is a guessing game, but I'm sure you know a failing paper when you see one! :) I've also mostly avoided ranking the importance of the article topics, because those aren't really any battles in which I'm prepared to get involved. - KSchutte 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. While I think the idea of a tag and grading system is useful I'm not convinced by the practicality. The notion that some people have read an article and find it to be worth reading is cool, but needs to be better - there really needs to be a voting system for articles, so that they get a star rating by those who can be bothered. This is like a psuedo-review system. In the absence of such I'm not sure how one can say that most articles in Wikipedia are bad. On the contrary I feel that they have a lot of good info that is not normally found in paper or electronic print. It probably depends on POV. Re: failing papers, I've seen papers that failed, that deserved to pass - failed on ideological grounds, so I'm not sure where that leaves things... Sholto Maud

Indian philosophy
Namaste. I noticed that you added a link on the article for Indian philosophy but that site seemed to be a collection of general materials not related to Hindu philosophy specifically. The only item I found there that seemed relevant was a paper on Hindu Philosophy that I think would be considered a self-published document and thus not a WP:RS for this topic. If you feel that the site is important I would encourage you to raise the issue on the talk page for the article so it can be examined more closely. It is good to see someone with an interest in philosophy participating, and I look forward to dialog on this matter if you feel that I have acted in error, as I so often do. Buddhipriya 23:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for dialog regarding the Indian philosophy article. Now that the link issue is complete, would you mind giving an opinion on what to do with the article in general on the talk page for it, or here?  Since you have a background in philosophy it would be interesting to have your views. Is there any reason to keep text in that article, or should it just be a list of pointers to articles? Buddhipriya 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking an editor to a name in the real world
Hi, KSchutte, it's an extremely strict rule that no personal information (real life name, contact details, etc.) is ever to be posted about another editor, unless that editor voluntarily supplies such information himself. Violations of that can lead to blocks &mdash; even to indefinite blocks. Do not ever post anything on Wikipedia that could lead to a connection being made between a user who wishes to remain anonymous and an identity in the real world. I don't care whether it's true or false, whether you have evidence or are simply making a wild guess or following stalking threads on sites devoted to "outing" Wikipedians. I hope what you did (twice) was just done out of thoughtlessness and ignorance of policy. Musical Linguist 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I didn't know of this policy and I don't agree with it, but I'll follow it. - KSchutte 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nous
I see you've edited Neoplatonism responsibly in the past, so I wanted to alert you to the intense changes that have been taking place at Nous, just in case you may have the time and expertise to contribute or respond appropriately (it's a bit of a mess). Wareh 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, ancient philosophy is quite far from my areas of expertise. I'm afraid I wouldn't be much more than an ignorant observer. - KSchutte 19:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for your reply! Wareh 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007
The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 05:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jainism logo.png
Hello, KSchutte. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Jainism logo.png) was found at the following location: User:KSchutte. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

List
Kevin - I have restored List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy as per your request at WP:PHIL. It was deleted via the WP:PROD process, which is supposed to be used for uncontested deletions. Apparently, no one contested it within the specified period of time. No worries, however, one can contest these things post-deletion. But, beware, the original nominator may put it up on AfD. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not the editor who initiated the PROD, but I was the editor who queried the list's viability on the talk page (see Accuracy and maintainability of this list). My concerns have not been assuaged by the discussion since the list was restored, so I have now nominated it at AfD: see Articles for deletion/List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Invite


Gregbard 03:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007
The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to answer this late
Re: your message from April.

Hi, sorry to answer this late but I have not been around Wiki for some time due to the fact that I cannot be distracted when I work. Sorry that I could be of no help in the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject National Basketball Association June 2008 Newsletter
 The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.

Speedy deletion of List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage
A tag has been placed on List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 12:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage
I have nominated List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009
It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Template
A template you created, Template:Foreign philosophy terms, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Anthony Quinton, Baron Quinton -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Angest listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Angest. Since you had some involvement with the Angest redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:KSchutte


A tag has been placed on User:KSchutte requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. creffett (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)