User talk:Gregbard/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Message

Hi: I say your invite to the Wikiproject Logic.
How/where could I edit 'Logic navigation' which appear as:

'Template:Logic navigation'

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 Wikipedia: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< 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 {{hangon}} 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. --Wooty 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, James086 Talk | Contribs 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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):

  • 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)

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


Your edit to Trivialism

Message posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Trivialism. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/dialetheism/ in this case) 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.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Trivialism with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Trivialism with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Trivialism saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your original contributions are welcome.

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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia: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 "{{prod}}" 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 {{dated prod}} 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 {{hangon}} 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 Wikipedia: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)

Notability of Senator Theatre (Chico, California)

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 {{hangon}} 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)

Very unique

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 {{hangon}} 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 {{hangon}} 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. — 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. — 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". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

FS (logic)

A {{prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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}}. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

PQ (logic), FS (logic)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Formal language - syntax and semantics 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. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On July 27, 2007, a fact from the article Subjective logic, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:20, 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of Richard B. Parker

Hi Greg. Can you please explain this edit? Paul August ☎ 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 ☎ 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 Closedmouth (talk · contribs), 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 {{hangon}} 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 Closedmouth (talk · contribs), 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 {{hangon}} 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 navigation 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

Replaceable fair use

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 {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, 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#Negation_of_definitions. 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. — 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. — 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-{{PROD}}ded, with the modficiation that you are not allowed to deleted the {{PROD}}.) — 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 )\to(\existsx )(\existsz )~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 Wikipedia: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\inX)(y\inX)(x)(\existsy)(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 [1], 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. — 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 [2]. 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. — 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 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. — 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&Ryz\toRxz)
and
(x)(y)(z)(Rxy&Ryz\to (\existsx)(\existsz(¬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. — 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 \to(\existsx)(\existsz) 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. — 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture in Chico. 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#NAC. 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#NAC 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: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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#Wikipedia-specific_help 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. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "Raebedet", whoever it is, is not a Wikipedia editor. — 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 {{prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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}}.— 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic/participants to Wikipedia: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. — 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. — 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.) — 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, Wikipedia: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....) — 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? — 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)

eh?

Are you sure you mean to tag Ultimate fate of the universe with {{philosophy|importance=|class=|religion=yes}}? 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?--VectorPotentialTalk 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.--VectorPotentialTalk 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 {{hangon}} 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 {{all}}: 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: Wikipedia: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. — 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 Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Thank you. 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 {{hangon}} 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. — 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. — 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. — 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 Wikipedia: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? — 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. — 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 Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Thank you. 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 (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

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