User talk:Phlsph7

Your GA nomination of Ethics
The article Ethics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ethics for comments about the article, and Talk:Ethics/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Semantics
The article Semantics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Semantics for comments about the article, and Talk:Semantics/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Remsense -- Remsense (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Algebra
The article Algebra you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Algebra for comments about the article, and Talk:Algebra/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arithmetic
The article Arithmetic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arithmetic for comments about the article, and Talk:Arithmetic/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of philosophy
The article History of philosophy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of philosophy for comments about the article, and Talk:History of philosophy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SilverTiger12 -- SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The Core Contest has now begun!
The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. –  Aza24  (talk)   03:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations on winning second place in this year's Core Contest. Please get in touch with me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk to arrange your prize. Best wishes, --Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

GA review of Billy Ballew Motorsports
Hi, and thanks for reviewing the article. I saw that it was reviewed and it was nominated under my name. However, my concern is that I didn't nominate it at all? Someone else seemed to have nominated it under my name: MysticCipher87 put the review up and seemingly put it under my name. I didn't do anything. I'm confused as to how I'm the nominator? I also had barely made any edits related to the article or its talk page, either. Something about this feels odd. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 13:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Phlsph7: Another note: I never knew this was put under my name until I saw the failure. Also, from what I can tell after looking through their edits, they seemed to have copied my signature and changed the visuals and not the actual links themselves. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919  (he/him • t • c) 13:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion and thanks for clarifying the issue. I was a little confused about this point as well since the article talkpage showed MysticCipher87 as the nominator while the review page and the GA overview page show you as the nominator. I had assumed that a name change was responsible. If the nomination template was filled out with errors, that would explain the mismatch. There was also another problem about the GA page number: the GA page was Talk:Billy_Ballew_Motorsports/GA2 with a page number of 2 even though there is no Talk:Billy_Ballew_Motorsports/GA1. This could have happened if MysticCipher87 just copied the nomination template from an article that you had previously nominated. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks a lot for your kind words! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The Core Contest is halfway through!
Hello Core Contest participants, we've officially hit the halfway mark! With just over three weeks remaining until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!

Now is a good time to set goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. –  Aza24  (talk)   02:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

History of Christianity
Hi! You were recommended to me as someone who might be willing to help get this article to FA status. It's a big long article, but it's also a "flagship" article, and it seems to me only right that it should be among our best accordingly - but I need help. I have never had an FA. Please give it a once over if at all possible! Any and all comments will be appreciated. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That definitely is a big and important project. It's probably not the easiest article to get started with FA. Form a first look, it seems to be well written and researched. It's quite long at 12900 words prose size (see WP:SIZERULE) but may be acceptable given the scope of the topic.
 * A few observations:
 * WP:EARWIG detects no copyvios.
 * The earliest were the University of Bologna (1088), the University of Oxford (1096), and the University of Paris where the faculty was of international renown (c. 1150). needs a reference
 * the paragraph starting with Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and many others protested is unsourced
 * Monter 2020 is listed in the source section but not cited in the article
 * For some sources without a page number, you set the parameter "p" of the sfn template to "n/a". A better alternative might be to use the parameter "loc" instead to refer to named sections where the claims are found, e.g. "loc=§ 1. Introduction" instead of "p=n/a", or to remove the parameter altogether.
 * Both Islam and crusade negatively impacted Eastern Christianity should this be "the Crusades"?
 * By the sixth century, there is evidence for Christian communities replace "for" with "of"
 * One of the oldest representation of Jesus replace "representation" with "representations"
 * Early Christianity's system of beliefs and morality have been subject-verb agreement error: system ... have
 * ordinary people that Roman culture replace "that" with "whom"
 * is affirmed in the fourth century Milan edict replace "fourth century" with "fourth-century"
 * First century Christian writings replace "First century" with "First-century"
 * This destigmatized illness, transformed health care in Antiquity, and led remove both commas
 * expressing tolerance for all religions, legalizing Christian worship add "and" before "legalizing"
 * local leaders and lower level clergy were replace "lower level" with "lower-level"
 * I'm not sure about the exact rules, the article keeps switching between uppercase and lower case of the terms "west"/"western" and "east"/"eastern", for example but large sections of the Western church remained unconvinced and doctrinal supremacy over the western church
 * few councils that occur in the early replace "occur" with "occured"
 * it was the Nestorian churches who were best replace "who" with "that"
 * I think "the Crusades" should always be uppercase
 * Constantinople remained its capitol and replace "capitol" with "capital"
 * led folk to believe the end of the world was immanent. replace "immanent" with "imminent"
 * there are various duplicate links (see WP:DUPLINK) across the article, for example, Roman Empire and Christendom in the lead section. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt might be helpful.
 * The talk page says that the article uses British English. For consistency:
 * replace "center" with "centre"
 * replace "equaled" with "equalled"
 * replace "favored " with "favoured"
 * replace "favor" with "favour"
 * replace "practicing " with "practising"
 * replace "color" with "colour"
 * replace "traveled" with "travelled"
 * replace "behaviors" with "behaviours"
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OMG!! This is amazing!  Bless you!  Thank you! I will get to work on every one of these today. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I copied all of these to the peer review page just in case someone else has an opinion too - cuz that never happens... Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to hear that the comments were helpful. I have my fingers crossed for your nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A thousand blessings on your head!! My electricity was off all day today, and I got almost nothing done. :-( Your second comment made me realize I need better sources for the entire Reformation section, so I am beginning a complete rework of that. You have helped in more ways than you know!  Thank you again and again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

A special thank you
I can't tell you how grateful I am for your help on History of Christianity. Your comments improved the article. Let me know if I can ever return the favor - no wait - favour. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Metaphysics
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Metaphysics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Metaphysics
The article Metaphysics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Metaphysics for comments about the article, and Talk:Metaphysics/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

GA renomination of Arrow's theorem
Hi, just wanted to let you know I've renominated the article on Arrow's impossibility theory over at WP:GAN. I think I've fixed all the missing citations from last time. Thanks for your help! :) –Sincerely, A Lime 21:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for implementing the suggestions, the sourcing looks much better now. Good luck with the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Would you be willing to do the GA review? It should be a lot quicker this time around since you'd only need to check up on the places I'd missed the first time around. –Sincerely, A Lime 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's probably better if someone else does the second review. Just a few short observations on points that could come up during the review:
 * there is one maintenance tag "dubious – discuss"
 * to be on the safe side, it might be good to add citations to the following passages
 * Non-dictatorship—at least two voters can affect...
 * An ordinal (ranked) social welfare function...
 * Independence of irrelevant alternatives For two preference profiles...
 * I'm not sure if "Holliday, Wesley H.; Pacuit, Eric (2023-02-11)" is a reliable source
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The 2024 Core Contest has ended!
The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. –  Aza24  (talk)   00:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Your GA nomination of Human history
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Human history you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

FA Existence
Coordinators say I am good to go for that review. I will get started this evening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I'm looking forward to your review. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll bet you've changed your mind about that now!  However, check out my last paragraph on the review. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even with the best of intentions, reviews don't always go as smooth as one would hope for. Thanks for your thorough evaluation. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did have good intentions, and I hoped that 'thorough' would carry enough weight to close it out. I went through that thing with a fine toothed comb! I can't believe you haven't gotten it yet. I want to complain but I know that won't help! For heaven's sakes, what more do they want? It has nothing but support. Aaarggh! I hope they don't leave you hanging for too long. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope that the reason for the delay just is that the coordinators haven't had the time yet to take a final look at the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been wringing my hands and checking every day, and just now I found the notice it has been promoted!! There's some kind of delay with the bot, but you got it!  See - they did finish with me. It was enough with the others that no more was needed! You got it! I am so glad!!  YAY!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was on holiday, camping and hiking in the Highlands of Scotland, otherwise I am sure it would all have gone more smoothly and rapidly. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That was quite a process indeed. I'm happy that all worked out. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well of course it did! You are reasonable and co-operative! That makes all the difference. I couldn't just approve everything and still look like I was doing a good job, but all issues were minor imo, and you fixed them, and that enabled me to speak with some authority and knowledge - some weight as they say in philosophy - when I approved it. It was an excellent article from the get-go, so there wasn't really any doubt in my mind where we would end up. Hey, I am going to ask that question that we got stymied at for awhile. If I was wrong and put you through the wringer for nothing I will not only apologize, I will owe you one. I'll be back to let you know what they say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I posted the question to Gog the Mild at. I did my best to represent the disagreement fairly. He said rephrasing to idealists was OR in his opinion, and in my opinion, he is a WP god and an FA authority. Call upon me anytime you feel a need to be roasted over the coals for any reason. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for probing more deeply into this issue. I surely don't want to argue with a WP god and an FA authority on this particular case so I'll restrict myself to a more general observation. As I understand the linguistic level, a generic usage of "X-ists" and "the X-ist" is sometimes employed to describe the view of "X-ism" (and vice versa). This seems to be the case, for example, in (first paragraph: materialism/materialists) and in  (lead section and the section "1. Dualism": dualism/dualists/the dualist). It may depend on the context whether generic reference is meant and it's possible that this was not the case for the disputed passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think it is context dependent. What you say makes sense, and I think there are cases where it's fine. At any rate, you cooperated even when you didn't agree, and that deserves upvoting all by itself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Writing
Is this one that you would be interested in working on? I think it would be fun to get it to GA, especially as it's one of those vital articles where you have to do the thing the article is about in order to successfully pass GAN. Remsense 诉  07:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, it looks like an interesting candidate for a GA project. And the fact that "you have to do the thing the article is about" is definitely a plus. However, I'm currently busy as I just started working on the article Ontology. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in WP:GARC
Hello Phlsph7, I noticed you have an article listed at WP:GAN. I recently started a project, Good Article Review Circles, and thought you might be interested. This initiative helps articles get reviewed more quickly through collaborative efforts. By joining, you'll review others' articles and get your own reviewed in return. Check out the page for more details! — GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Relations (philosophy)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Relations (philosophy) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Relations (philosophy)
The article Relations (philosophy) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Relations (philosophy) for comments about the article, and Talk:Relations (philosophy)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

hello, please review my edits
Hello, please review these two edits about philosophy of science: 1. this one 2. this one

thanks, 5.234.36.210 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * i addede the unity of science to see also in theory of everything, and i added formal epistemology to formal logic section. 5.234.36.210 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, can you please use these two resources for editing wikipedia articles about unity of science and formal epistemology.
 * 1. [Https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formal-epistemology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formal-epistemology/]2. [Https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-unity/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-unity/] 5.234.36.210 (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello 5.234.36.210, these two sources are reliable and could be used. Your edit to the article "Logic" was reverted because formal logic has countless applications with formal epistemology being only one of them. The unity of science is somehow relevant to the theory of everything but they are not the same topics. To get faster responses to your questions, you could ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Existence

 * YAY! Whoohoo!  Congrats! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the FA Phlsph! 750h+ 03:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * based... jp×g🗯️ 18:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Metaphysics
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Relation (philosophy)
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger Effect
You removed the "controversy" section from the Dunning-Kruger effect page. The page now reads like there is no controversy about it at all. (As if the very fact that you removed it, didn't emphasize it?) Is this an accurate reflection on the body of knowledge surrounding it, objectively, or only so in your opinion? I leave this question for you to ponder and research, and to reconsider your contributions to the article to bring it more in line with reflecting the body of knowledge surrounding it. Dagelf (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for your comment and your contributions to the article Dunning–Kruger effect. I assume you are referring to text you added in March 2024, which I removed shortly afterwards. The reason was that the text "mostly repeats information from the section "Explanations", mostly without proper sourcing". If you feel that the section "Explanations" ignores major positions or disagreements, I would be happy to have a look the ignored sources and make adjustments if necessary. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Existence scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 6 August 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/August 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ontology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Event.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)