User talk:Jaymay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Image copyright problem with Image:Rudolph-carnap.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rudolf-carnap.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 04:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. - Jaymay 21:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Jaymay, you may be interested in this, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy of Mind. As of the moment, I'm the only active member(;. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello too[edit]

Sorry if your ideas on citation are getting swamped here. The more I think about it, the more I agree that the best way of scaring of the trolls is standards like these. When I started out here, there was nothing of the sort: only personal essays.

Do you have a sample of anything substantial you wrote? Dbuckner 08:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No prob about the citation ideas getting swamped. Hopefully some people will provide some comments. About a sample of my contributions: It's difficult because I do mostly cleaning up and not so much large substantial contributions. Here's a list of my contributions for starters. I did, however, do quite a bit of the work on the a priori and a posteriori (philosophy) entry. There were two pages, a priori and a posteriori, and the a priori entry was mixed with non-philosophy stuff. So, I did a lot of work by making the a priori page a disambiguation page, then I redirected a posteriori and created a priori (philosophy) to redirect to a priori and a posteriori (philosophy). I then did a lot of work organizing, adding content, and added sources to the a priori and a posteriori (philosophy) entry. So, you can take a look at that entry (a priori and a posteriori (philosophy)), for a sample, since I've done a lot of that. I also did a similar thing for the Analytic/synthetic distinction entry. I've also done quite a bit on the following pages: conceptual analysis, Knowledge argument, John Perry (philosopher), Jaegwon Kim, Frank Cameron Jackson, Stephen Stich. -- Jaymay 22:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

a priori[edit]

Hello. Could you please comment at Talk:A priori (mathematical modeling) or on the AfD page for that article? Thanks. Michael Hardy 00:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Michael. I don't know what "a priori" means in mathematical modeling. I only know its applications in philosophy. Any edits I have made to that article would just have to do with the disambiguation entry related to a priori. - Jaymay 03:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed your reply on my user page. If it had been on my talk page, I'd certainly have seen it earlier. Michael Hardy 13:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Wittgenstein-tractatus-ogden.JPG[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Wittgenstein-tractatus-ogden.JPG. 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. First, you state that I could fix this "by taking a picture of it [my]self." I did take a picture of it myself. That's what's posted. And that's clearly stated in the image summary.
Second, what is this image supposed to be replaceable with? I don't know that a comparable "freely licensed image could reasonably be found." I don't think this can really be decided without the alternative freely licensed image present.
Since it is a picture that I took with my own camera, I'm just going to leave it as is and assume that everything is okay, unless I hear otherwise. Thanks. -- Jaymay 18:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Flanders-note2.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Flanders-note2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lewis White Beck[edit]

Hello Jaymay -- Just a note of thanks and appreciation for the nice work you did expanding the article on Beck. -- WikiPedant (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No prob! Thanks for the feedback. - Jaymay (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminism[edit]

When you have a chance, type "terminism" and "Ockham" into Google and see what comes up. Jjshapiro (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. - Jaymay (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Anthony Platts[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mark Anthony Platts, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Mark Platts. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mark de Bretton Platts[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mark de Bretton Platts, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted my reasons on the talk page of Mark de Bretton Platts. -- Jaymay (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Salmon[edit]

The subject of the article Nathan Salmon believes I'm being a bit too heavy-handed in asking for better citations for both his own views and the views he claims to refute. If you get a chance to stop by the article, could you comment? I think the article was improved by removing irrelevant personal details and puffery, but in the section labeled "Work", there are a lot of issues that are covered in other Wikis (like Existence but not referenced/summarized in the Salmon article, so the average reader would find it difficult to read. Your viewpoints will be appreciated.--Levalley (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Levalley. I appreciate the interest, but I'm not sure I'm in a good position to comment on that article. :) - Jaymay (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

European Review of Philosophy[edit]

Hi Jaymay,

I see you are the main contributor of European Review of Philosophy, may I kindly ask you to update the article to reflect some recent changes? The ERP series with CSLI has been discontinued after volume 6 - the series is now published as a quarterly journal by Springer with the title: Review of Philosophy and Psychology. The editorial board has seen some minor changes/additions too. As you are more familiar than I am with conventions regarding philosophy journals in WP, may I kindly ask you to take care of updating the article accordingly? Thanks --DarTar (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. :) I created a redirect for European Review of Philosophy to the new entry Review of Philosophy and Psychology. And I made the relevant changes to the List of philosophy journals. - Jaymay (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks Jaymay, just one note: I would avoid the redirect and leave a plain ERP->RPP link in the body of the ERP article instead. The old series had a different title, publisher, periodicity, ISSN, format, scope and editorial board so I think it deserves an entry on its own. What do you think? --DarTar (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem. That's a good idea. I've just implemented it. - Jaymay (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Philosophical Psychology (journal) for deletion[edit]

Icon delete yellow.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Philosophical Psychology (journal), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical Psychology (journal) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TYelliot (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I just contributed my vote to keep. Jaymay (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A priori (statistics)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article A priori (statistics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references. It also confuses "prior" as in antecedent probability with "a priori", despite Aristotle et alia, so falls into the "patent nonsense" deletion-bin.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Animal rights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


Possible changes to Analytic/Synthetic distinction article[edit]

DanLanglois (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've pinging you because I saw that you'd discussed and attempted some sensible improvements to this analytic/synthetic distinction page (this is the talk page):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

Now, you may remember that your participation was several years ago? But, I don't want to edit the page on my own. I am, however, of the opinion that it can use some work -- are you available for any further discussion of this? I've listed some potential improvements, and I see that my comments turned out rather stream-of-consciousness. But one, is easy money, --it's already been pointed out on the talk page that the section on Two-Dimensionalism is irrelevant and wouldn't be missed. ?

Relevant alternatives theory[edit]

Hi Jaymay,

I edited Relevant alternatives theory a few minutes ago just to add mention of its relation to contextualism. The introduction section stops rather abruptly—I was wondering if you had any interest in carrying it on. No bother if you don't, but just thought I'd prod you in case you are interested in editing it some more. Thanks for the work you've done to make Wikipedia's coverage of philosophy better. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)