User talk:Anarchia

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



Crystal personal.png

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 19:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Debatepedia external link?[edit]

Not sure if it would make sense to post on this page an external link to It's mission is to be a wiki reasoning, debate, and evidence resource. Seems that it might make sense here, but I'm not sure. http:// -- 00:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello I have noticed your clean project on various philosophy articles. I am posting here because I was hoping that you could indeed validate as a 3rd party of sorts A. H. Armstrongs introduction of Against the Gnostics by Plotinus. I have posted what the introduction states on Plotinus' article and or BIO. If you would like I can email you the page scanned for validation. The version of Armstrong that I use is the one right after the Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism and it addresses modern misconceptions inlight of the Nag Hammadi that the tract had. Thanks LoveMonkey 11:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Novels WikiProject[edit]

Book collection.jpg

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Commentary in article Human agency[edit]

Use the discussion tab to find an article's talk page.

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Human agency. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article.

Also, be sure to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) – this will automatically produce a signature so other contributors can identify multiple posts from you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page! And again, thanks for your help! --Masamage 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines on how to move a page. You need to use the 'move' button, not just copy-paste everything. This destroys the edit history, which is a huge problem for Wikipedia. I am reverting everything back to how it used to be; now that you've created Agency (philosophy) you can't move stuff on top of it anymore, so you'll need to use the requested moves page to have an admin do it. --Masamage 00:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't take too long to get it cleared up. Good luck! Let me know if you have any questions; I do this stuff all the time and I'd be glad to help. I know what a pain it can be. --Masamage 00:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, good luck with the lecture! The links are totally fine the way they are, because I set up the Agency (philosophy) page as a redirect. Actually, it would have been fine anyway, because once moved, the Human agency page will turn into a redirect instead, so anybody who clicks on something leading there will be automatically shunted along to the correct location. Linking to a redirect page is never a problem, so don't worry about changing those in the future (although it's perfectly okay that you did). The only thing that doesn't work is a redirect to a redirect, which is explained here. --Masamage 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia writing styles[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your efforts. I am a philosophy novice, and I think this is great. I am having a real problem with some of the articles though (not so much yours though), but I was hoping you would keep the following in mind:

A few articles are getting almost impossible to read by the layman. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia; not one man's unreadable treatise of the history of all thought on one minute sub-field of philosophy. Hit the high points, but in plainer English. Here is just one of scores of examples within the text: "the asymmetry of the causal relation is unrelated to the asymmetry of any mode of implication that contraposes."

I understand that causation is not a simple concept, but even so an "encyclopedia" entry should be readable and understandable by an intelligent, educated person without philosophical expertise or training. This is also not meant to be a forum for philosophers to debate the subtler points of causality theory to the nth degree. Remember, it is an encyclopedia. I would love to learn the high points about causality in a way that I can comprehend, but I can't here, and believe me I am no dummie (a well-read PhD student in a "hard" science at a top-ten university - albeit not well-read in philosophy, causality, or logic, but I should certainly be qualified to understand an encyclopedia).

(One solution to still keep the depth is to drill down with more subtle concepts in links. Check out something like the sections on finance or financial economics; these are huge complicated fields, but the layman can read and read, first getting the overview and then getting more depth as requested. I learned a lot there.)

Again, thanks for your writing. It is very interesting stuff. Artman772000 07:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)artman772000

Hi Artman, I agree with you completely. In fact I have been trying recently to simplify pages that have been written in ridiculously technical language. I have been reading and writing philosophy for 20 years now, and I can't understand some of it - some of the worst entries are unnecessarily unreadable, pompous, unsupported and occassionally even unjustifiable (to blow my own goal of using simple words of less than two syllables!)Anarchia 07:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the same task, Anarchia. I totally agree with you and Artman. Frequently, the low importance articles have reams of overly technical information that then gets linked to the major articles. The hapless reader clicks on a link hoping for more clarification and gets hit with a round of jargon. Much of this is written by the academic philosophers themselves, on their pages, which I also find objectionable. Someone actually put the word "pompous" on an article I was editing recently (It is indeed pompous, in my view) and the subject of the article called it vandalism. Made me laugh, anyway.--Levalley (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Category: Philosophy Clean Up[edit]

First, thanks for taking on the task of cleaning up the philosophy category. It's a job that few people are willing to do. I didn't even realize that there was a philosophy of time category. But that's where my question comes in. Just because we put something in the philosophy of time category, does that mean we should take it out of the more general philosophy category (as you did here)? I'm not familiar with the specifics of how categories work, but it seems that if something is a a "philosophy of time" article it is also a "philosophy" article. Just curious. Thanks! Postmodern Beatnik 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can work out, the general rule seems to be to put things in the most specific categories to which they can belong. The more specific categories are themselves members of more general categories. So, if something is part of 'Philosophy of time', then it is also part of 'Branches of philosophy' and, part of 'Philosophy'. Some things need to be in more than one category, just because they are in more than one category. For example, something could be both in 'Metaphysics' and in 'Epistemology', and putting it in one of these categories would not put it in the other. Make sense? Let me know if you think I have misinterpreted something. Anarchia 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I see your rationale, and it makes sense to me. But looking at the conversation you had with Banno just below, I see that the matter is not entirely clear. Personally, I stay away from the whole category thing (which is one reason I am grateful for your work on it), so you won't get any resistance from me if you ultimately decide to take something up on an RfC. But, of course, the decision to go with the existing conventions or try to change them is entirely up to you. Both make prima facie sense, but those more interested in such details might be able to hammer out a reason why one is better than the other. Postmodern Beatnik 14:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the work you are doing on the cats for philosophy. Note that there are guidelines for the cats at Category talk:Philosophy, and that this suggests that the Top level Category:Philosophy should include: The main article, Philosophy Main philosophical fields: metaphysics, etc. Philosophy of... articles relating to another specific field - eg Philosophy of science Meta-articles that are about philosophy generally, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philosophy

I note that you have remove the top-level cat from Epistemology and Aesthetics after I re-inserted it. If you think the guidelines inappropriate, you might discuss them at Category talk:Philosophy. Otherwise, the top-level cat should be re-inserted.

Thanks again, the cats get very messy. Banno 05:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that, and thanks for the informaiton. I am not sure why people want to have Epistemology listed under 'Cat:Phil', 'Cate:Branches' and 'Cat:Epist'. Isn't that unnecessary duplication? I don't feel like challenging accepted protocols though - you long time members are bound to have reasons for your decisions. I think I have changed everything back now.Anarchia 05:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason was simply to have the main articles on the main cat page. Perhaps you should take your sugestion to the talk page, Category talk:Philosophy. Banno 05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Gregbard 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

citations needed[edit]

agnus serra is nominated for deletion, primarily because it lacks citation.--Buridan 12:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sophia nomination[edit]

Just a note ot let you know I've nominated you for a Sophia. The systematic categorisation of philosophy articles is of the highest importance, and I want you to know that your work is greatly appreciated. Banno 01:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - from time to time I wonder if the categoriation work I am doing is actually useful. It is great to hear that you think it is worthwhile. Anarchia 01:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


No offense taken on category issues. On the face of it, it seemed good under metaphysics. I'll defer to you because you have been working on the phil categories. I'm trying to put things in place for the various wikiprojects. Each of the portals has a category tree. Be well, Gregbard 09:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I do think you are right about teleology being part of metaphysics, although I have never seen it in a metaphysics course. So, that change in category was great - made me think! Anarchia 09:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
While I have your attention, I was wondering what to do about category:physical cosmology as it compares to teleology. I think cosmology is the whole thing, and teleology is just the end part (and so therefore a subset of it). I found that I was putting quite a few articles into those two categories thinking it should eventually go one way or the other. Be well, Gregbard 09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not an expert on physical cosmology (more my partner's area, but he is out this evening - sorry). My take on it is that some cosmological theories use teleolgical forms of explanation or assume that things can be brought about by final causes. So, some theories about physical cosmolgy will be teleological theories, but many won't be. Make sense? I know that teleology looks like it should be an 'ology' (science) of some kind. And, I know that it can be considered the science of looking for designs in nature. However, the idea that there can be a sensible Aristotelian final cause approach to (physical) science seems controversial (based on the things you teach in standard phil of science anyway).Anarchia 09:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I should add that a theory can also be a teleological theory without having anything (directly) to do with physical cosmology. Anarchia 09:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Aggie Moffat AfD[edit]

Hi Anarchia, regarding establishing notability through media coverage, one important caveat is "non-trivial" - both mentions (I only see 2) are trivial and passing. Other sources are blogs. Oh, and she's a tea-lady. Media coverage should reference the subject in question as the / a main focus of an article to satisfy the criteria. Deiz talk 12:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I will admit to thinking that the tea ladies of the world are too often thought of as being unworthy of notice... But you are right, of course. Pity, because I really did get a kick out of reading this article. Anarchia 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean, as a Scottish football fan I found the page interesting, then the Wiki-enforcement hat comes on and policy is applied. Sorry Aggie :) Deiz talk 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Biological imperatives[edit]

Sounds fine by me. I just thought that normally a redirect would have been added in straight away in order to put the article move into effect (presumably, the two articles were identical at the time of the second page's creation). If you want to change {{subst:prod}} to {{mergefrom|Biological imperative}}, go ahead.

I am also concerned, looking at Promsan's edits, that some of his(?) contributions may have been original research. I have left a message about this on his talk page, but seeing as he hasn't edited in months a response may not be forthcoming. Robin S 16:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think s/he messed up out of ignorance (which I have done myself a few times). I will change prod to merge. And, I suspect that you are right about the original research, but it is hard to tell for sure. Anarchia 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

importance classifications[edit]

I saw your contribution to philosophy project. I wish to suggest a help tip for you. See "what links here" in left column of any article, which will give good idea of where all that article is used. There you can select only (main) space links. This will help you judging importance better. Thanks and regards. Lara_bran 06:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I do know how to use the 'what links here' tool. This tool does not have a lot to do with the importance rating, however. See the philosophy assessment page and the assessment talk page for information on importance ratings.
Can you let me know which of the importance ratings you disagree with? When I have doubts about the rating, say whether the article is mid or high, I generally note that in my edit summary. I have been involved in university level philosophy for twenty years now, but there are definitely still some areas where my knowledge is limited. Anarchia 07:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat perplexed by some of your project's ratings in Asian and European philosophy. For example, why is Heidegger mid and Wittgenstein high? Why is a central figure in theology and the philosophy of religion such as Schleiermacher rated low? Sorry but it seems to me that more general and npov criteria should be used. Ehmhel 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly true that the knowledge of the person doing the rating will affect the rating, and it is undoutedly true that there is a lot that I do not know! I am working my waythrough all the articles checking whether there is a rating and altering the rating if I disagree with it, or giving the article the one that best fits given what I know about the topic and the importance rating system. I have no problem whatsoever with someone with the right knowledge altering my ratings.
As far as the ratings you mention are concerned,I genuinely believe that Wittgenstein's work is better known among non-philosophers and has had a bigger impact on philosophy in general than Heidegger's. Is there a chance that I am wrong? Absolutely! If you disagree, change the rating. From my phil of religion education (which is undergrad only), Schleiermacher is rarely mentioned. As far as I can work out his importance to theology is not duplicated in philosophy of religion (for all he repsresents a sea-change in approaches to the topic). But, again, if you know that he has had a significant impact on philosophy and reamins important to the discipline, change the rating.
NPOV is a great idesl, but I don't think that there is a book that gives the importance ratings for WikiProject:Philosophy. Anarchia 02:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Not that i disagree, but i thought that tool will give better idea. I also have left a note in wikiproject talk to your comment. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
To User:Ehmhel. You can feel free to change ratings. Some rating is always better than no rating. Lara_bran 04:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Having an epiphany[edit]

I think we can organize the philosophy project the same way they handle the math project. They have a banner that includes a "field" option. I think this is the way to go in the future. I have a proto-type at 'User:Gregbard/Sandbox/e You can see the field options if you look at the code. (I work on the documentation soon). This will spare us the proliferation of banners.

The problem I have now is that the logic project people might not go along with being a subproject of philosophy. I have advised the bot owner of this possible change of plan, but we need to put the idea out there some more. Be well,

Gregbard 02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an innovative idea, and it seems to have a the potential to avoid a number of problems that I have been concerned about. I am still not sure how it will deal with the multiple fields problem - but maybe the 'field' can include multiple fields in a tidy concise way? Anarchia 22:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The way it's set up, we have to choose one. Other than having a general category, I don't know how to deal with articles in more than one field.Gregbard 02:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I figured out a way. The military history project breaks it up into overlapping taskforces. I'll work on a proposed template. Gregbard 06:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


See Mircu's contributions and Category:Morality. What do you make of this grouping? Banno 21:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea for the cat is good, but about half the inclusions are not about morality, and in many cases cat ethics is being removed when it, or some other ethics related cat, should be there. I will confess to using this person's initative as a shove to start a new cat 'moral psych' which I have been restraining myself from beginning for some time. (It is a recognised division in the Oxford or Cambridge encyclopedia of phil - I forget which one.)
I have left a message on Micru's talk page and have been reverting or re-including ethics cats on pages already edited by him/her. Problem is I have a ton of ethics committee work I need to do today and a lecture to give, and I head off to a conference at 4am tomorrow, so I won't be able to do much more than I can in the next few minutes. Anarchia 21:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Phew - all Micru's cats checked up till his/her Banksy contrib. I have been 'generous' in those things I have left in cat morality - e.g. moral scepticism. But, only generous when I could see a plausible reason for including that cat. Anarchia 22:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

aesthetics navigation[edit]

Your help is sought here. Template:Aesthetics. Regards, Lara_bran 06:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi Anarchia - I see you have been trying to clean up the Rationality page at various times, and I thoroughly approve your decision to remove the Enlightenment template, of marginal relevance at best. I have been wondering about setting up a sidebox to go on all Rationality arguments that would help tie the whole of this area together - we seem to have 12-20 articles, of very variable quality, around the field, but if they were all brought up to standard they would serve a very useful function for introducing people to the ramifications of the idea and the different ways the word has been used. Would you be interested in collaborating in sketching something out? seglea 07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would definitely be interested in such a collaboration. Which articles were you thinking would be worth including and what thoughts did you have on the organisation of the box? Anarchia 07:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
ok, good, I will shift discussion to Talk:Rationality to start drafting a list seglea 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Anarchia, I stand corrected regarding the citation of encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia. However, as a Ph.D. student (I have a Ph.D.) you will understand that since one would not accept an encyclopedia as a resource in even an undergraduate paper I felt it should not be accepted here. The issue is one of authority, and encyclopedias citing each other seems fishy. But your point is well taken and I am glad to know the policy, even if I don't agree with it. Thank you: I am always happy to hear from responsible Wikipedia contributors/editors. uvaphdman 13:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman

List of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki faculties, departments and laboratories[edit]

You nominated yesterday this article for deletion, writing to me that this "is not suitable material for an encyclopedia". I have strong objections to your comment!!

At first, I would like to inform you that there is already an article about Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and that the page you nominated for deletition is actually a list of its departments, faculties and laboratories. I' ve asked other experienced members of wikipedia (from WikiProject Universities) and they have given me some tips on how to improve the article about Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. One of those was to eliminate all the lists (eg the list about the faculties and departments) and create a new article about each one of them. This is what I did and now my article is nominated for deletion.

Furthermore, it is very common for university articles to provide lists of faculties, departments, laboratories, people, members, presidents and so on as seperate articles. For exaple see the following pages: List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology departments and laboratories, List of Dublin City University faculties, schools, research centres and laboratories, List of University of Cambridge members, List of Imperial College London people, List of Towson University presidents, List of University of Southern California people, List of University of Washington student organizations, and many more!!

I think that all these articles shouldn't be nominated for deletition and that they are suitable material for an encyclopedia. Please remove your nomination...--Chggr 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is fine to have an article about the university - it is the list of departments that is bizarre. I still don't understand why you think it is encyclopedic. I don't understand how the list of departments would qualify as notable for an encyclopedia article even if it was contained within the university article. I definitely do understand your frustration with the AfD when you have acted in good faith after recieving experienced advice. I had no idea there was such a group of articles. I still think that they are unencyclopedic - imagine Encyclopedia Britannica with an article like one of these! It would be ridiculous. I notice taht they are all quite new. I think that some of the people ones are probably okay though. I have no idea what will come of the AfD - maybe there is something that justifies having them that I am unaware of... Anarchia 07:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy task forces[edit]

I certainly hope there are no philosophers out there that are doing social or political philosophy without doing ethics. My goodness! That would be terrible!

I really want to make everybody happy about the organization of things over there, so I am open to your concern. I realize it will be pared down, but the category list for social and political is already huge. (I could use some help making and paring down those lists btw). I went in the opposite direction recently by creating the Eastern, and the literature sections. I don't really think in terms of task forces (that is a term foisted on us by the assessment method). I just want to cover everything that belongs in philosophy without missing anything, and this seemed the best way to do it. Undoubtedly, there will be articles in each section that are not part of any other. That was the motivation for so many.

Right now my goal is getting the categories in each section down to where they are almost 100% appropriate for the particular tag. I don't want to get a lot of complaints, so it has to be pretty close.

Thanks for your work, be well, Gregbard 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do like your 'be well' sign off, it feels very nice.
I guess I would rather there were no 'literature' or 'philosopher' sections, and these things just got put in categories by type of philosopher or literature. You may have noticed that I just put 'metaphysicians' into the 'metaphysics' category, and I have been refining 'philosopher's into 'metaphysician' when it seemed appropriate.
I have also been working to tidy up the things that are included in various categories. I think I am in danger of entering into a revert war with people who work on theosophical issues who think that they should bebincluded under 'metaphysics', even though they are already in 'philosophy cat' through at least one, I think 2 other routes, and even though the pages in question, with the possible/probable exception of one I have left in the cat:metaphysics, are about as unphilosophical as you can get. I will carry on tidying the categories up. I have made this my break time job recently.
As far as the social/political/ethics dvision, I guess I can see the argument both ways. On the side of keeping the split is the fact that while pol phils may need to know ethics, ethicists often know (and are interested in) very little pol phil. And, as you say, that cat is large... I still kind of tend towards minimalism with the taging though... We need someone else's opinion! Anarchia 00:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Metaphysics has been the theme and foundation of the Instruction that is believed to have been given by Ascended Masters, such as Morya, Kuthumi, Lady Master Nada, and Sanat Kumara. Metaphysics has been the theme and foundation of the Teachings of organizations such as The Bridge to Freedom and The Temple of The Presence. For the last 77 years, Ascended Masters and Their Activities (organizations) have been teaching on the nature of Reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. They have been instructing on First Principles, including ontology and cosmology, and on the All-Pervading Principle of Life. Arion 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by theme and foundation. I think I know what you mean about teaching about the nature of reality and the relationship between mind and matter etc. The problem is that saying the nature of reality is X is not doing metaphysics. Consider the pages in question:
  1. Lady Master Nada contains no arguments about the nature of reality. This page is a bunch of statements about a person. There is no discussion of anthing to do with metaphysics.
  2. Kuthumi also contains no arguments about the nature of reality.
  3. Sanat Kumara also contains no arguments about the nature of reality. It is, again, a bunch of statements about "the Lord or Regent of Earth and of humanity", which makes a claim about existence, but this is not what metaphysics is about. It would be as ridiculous to include Jesus or Buddha or every page form the Catholic church, which probably also thinks it is inherently concerned with existence, in category:metaphysics.
  4. Morya Ditto.
  5. The Temple of The Presence Ditto, athough it seems to state facts and events that occur in a community rather than facts or events that occurred for people.
  6. The Bridge to Freedom Ditto.
Where is the philosphical metaphysics on these pages? Why do you want these pages included in the category?Anarchia 06:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the articles that you have asserted should not be listed under the category of "Metaphysics" are in fact directly concerned with philosophical metaphysics. Organizations of Ascended Master Teachings, as well as those discussions purported to originate directly from Ascended Masters, investigate principles of reality that transcend any particular science, traditionally including cosmology and ontology. They are also concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of existence, self-conscious being and the physical and non-physical world. They discuss subjects that are purported to be beyond the physical world, thus bridging the known material knowledge of man and the purported "Science of the Initiates".

There does not need to be a discussion of the general subject of a category for an article to be listed under that category. For example, there are 145 articles listed in Wikipedia under the category of "Nanotechnology". Each of these articles does not go into a discussion of the general subject of "Nanotechnology" - nor would it be expected to go into such a discussion. Arion 02:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that an article does not need to include the word 'metaphysics' to be in catregory:metaphysics, and also agree that an article need not discuss the subject in general terms to belong in a category. I believe that none of the pages concerned in our discussion here shows signs of investigating reality that would be recognised by any philosopher, and the category in question in philosophical metaphysics. They definitely do discuss "subjects that are purported to be beyond the physical world". But, as most of the pages on Wikipedia do this, this cannot, on its own, be an indicaiton that they belong in cat:metaphysics.
I ask again, what is it you believe is achieved by including these pages in cat:metaphysics, especially when they are already appropriately linked into cat:philosophy?
Would you like me to ask for this dispute to be mediated?Anarchia 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that anyone who is familiar with the subject of "Ascended Masters" and the organizations promoting this philosophical metaphysics regarding the nature of existence and the nature of Reality would agree that "Metaphysics" as a category best describes this subject. Those unfamiliar with the subject may disagree. Arion 03:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but I, on the other hand, believe that anyone who has a decent degree in metaphysics would agree that it does not. I think we have a situation here that really is best dealt with by informed mediation. Do you agree? Anarchia 05:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree for the reason that I stated above. Arion 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bacon, etc.[edit]

Glad to hear you take my point about Hobbes. Dis my man and we'd have real problems (though not so many as if you had dissed David Hume—then it would be on). Returning to Bacon, I might also note that he is typically considered the best of the Renaissance philosophers and one of the five founders of modern philosophy (along with Descartes, Galileo, Kepler, and Gassendi). He also coined the phrase "knowledge is power." But now I'm just being pedantic, aren't I? Anyway, when you're reading Bacon pay particular attention to the Four Idols and his Ants/Spiders/Bees metaphor. I'm pretty sure both are from Novum Organum. In fact, the idols are so important, it's really a shame that only two of them have Wikipedia articles. Maybe we'll have to get on that. You might also notice that Descartes pretty much lifts his call for new philosophical foundations directly from Bacon's call for new philosophical foundations ("we cannot engraft the new onto the old") and both attack Aristotelian Scholasticism—the abandonment of which is the context for the New Science.

As for Women Philosophers of the Early Modern Period, several of the excerpts are indeed filler. And such filler articles are often the result of overbearing political correctness. However, I suspect that it shows up on so many reading lists (yes, yes, perhaps more often than Bacon) due to its first entry: Princess Elisabeth's correspondence with Descartes. And that is well worth the read. If you think I can wax on about Bacon, wait until you here me tell of Elisabeth. Now there was a woman who doesn't need our help getting equal time. She trounced Descartes and left him sputtering. Sure, you'll hear plenty of macho historians of philosophy talking about how she "just didn't get it," but take a look—almost everything she said continues to be a criticism of Descartes today (though in different terms, since she used "soul" instead of "mind"). So yes, I highly recommend reading Elisabeth of Bohemia, too.

Now if you'll excuse me, this snooty gentleman must go lecture on Humean hermeneutics to a group of poststructuralist architects. ;) Postmodern Beatnik 17:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

'Post-structure-alist' architects!!!!!You have made my day. I think I will just stick to lecturing to philosophy students! (Actually, break at the moment, so essay marking :( ) P.S. I am with you on Elisabeth and Hume, too. Hume was my spur to get into philosophy in the first place.Anarchia 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And here I was worried that was too pretentious of a joke. By the way, how do you have essays to mark already? What kind of a slave driver are you? ;) Postmodern Beatnik 02:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi, you left me a message about my recent edit of the article on epistemology, essentially quoting the NPOV guidelines. My edit was only a spelling correction (γνoρίζω → γνωρίζω). Greek being my first language, I'm pretty sure this word is spelled with an omega. Perhaps your message was intended for someone else? Alex.g 07:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Argh! Yes, sorry about that - it was meant for the person who did the edit before you! Very embarassing - forgive me. Anarchia 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought so. np. thnx Alex.g 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Prod reasons[edit]

This is a friendly reminder to be sure, when proposing an article for deletion using {{prod}} to include a reason not only in the edit summary but also in the tag, by adding {{prod|[REASON]}}. Thanks --Tikiwont 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Susan hurley[edit]

Hi, I notice that you, justifiably, consider Susan Hurley of sufficent note to be worthy of a wikipedia article. Just thought you might like to know she died of cancer recently (16/08/07). Here is a link to one of the Universities where she was working up until her death: Wireless99 16:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You may also be interested to know there is also a facebook group dedicated to her memory if you need any biographical info to help you start the article etc. Wireless99 17:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


No worries. People do it all the time; you weren't the first and you won't be the last (*grin*) Bearcat 04:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice Edit on Hume[edit]

I suppose this edit wasn't revolutionary, but it was the first in some time to really add to the article. You did our boy proud. Postmodern Beatnik 03:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This episode in Hume's life is now covered more fully in the new Cleghorn article than in the Hume article, which is a pity considering I left all the interesting Hume material out of that article to try to emphasise that it is on Cleghorn.
Have you read Hume's 'letter to gentlemen' from this period of his life? I found it online today. When I have time (probably not till next weekend), I will try to add more of this material into the Hume article - like the fact that the ministers accused him of being amoral and a sceptic, as well as an atheist (resembles some current misunderstandings of Hume!), and the gist of the letter he wrote at the time. I like the fact that while many other people who held that Chair at Edinburgh have information about them on the Edinburgh website, Cleghorn just has wriiten next to him that he was appointed the position rather than Hume. It makes it look like they still regret their decision!
P.S. I am not really an ogre getting students to submit essays in August/September - I am in the Southern hemisphere, so our university year is 3/4 over :P Anarchia 09:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist philosophers[edit]

One of the purposes I had in tagging articles was to help the relevant projects know which articles were relevant to their project and which weren't. I do however know that several articles are miscategorized, which really screws things up for everybody. If there is good reason to believe that and individual article isn't particularly relevant to a project, then by all means tags can and should be removed. The only question which might arise in some of these cases is whether the articles might be relevant to the WikiProject Philosophy - Religion task force. If they are relevant to that group, then I think it might be a good idea to adjust the banner for that group. You probably know more about the subject than I do in any event, so feel free to do what seems to make most sense to you. John Carter 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 14 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Cleghorn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

----ST47Talk·Desk 18:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Hello! I found my way to your page as a result of my efforts to look into what is behind the discussion on whether to delete Category:Metaphysics(other), which was created recently by User:Buridan. I came across your "colloquy" with User:Arion/Aburesz (same person) and thought your comments were very lucid and reasonable. Then I went back to the CFD and discovered that you weren't part of the discussion there -- so I thought I ought to post a note here to be sure you're aware of it, seeing as you've been up to your neck in the debate.

By the way, I saw from your user page that you started the Nel Noddings article -- I figure that says something good about what sort of person you are. My wife teaches child/human development and loves her to pieces! :) Regards, Cgingold 06:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this CfD - I am not sure how I get to know about these things when they first begin to happen without checking the CfD page regularly.
I am never quite sure whether I am supposed to respond to messages on my talk page or on the message writers. Is there a rule about this?
By coincidence I was looking at your page with one of my daughters recently (not sure why, think you made a good edit on a page on my watch list), so it is nice to 'hear' from you. Tell your wife I agree with her about Nel Noddings. She is an incredible woman, with great ideas. I think her particular ethics of care theory needs a little adjustment (POV and OR stuff that I will not put in the article). However, it is a pity that more philosophers have not treated it seriously - it is definitely worth thinking about. The article I began needs a lot more work, help from someone in education would be great - perhaps you could talk her into it :) Anarchia 01:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Combined Ethical Thinking[edit]

We were taught combined ethical thinking in bioethics at the University of Nottingham, but your right in the fact that I can't find it anywhere. I have even started to wonder if my lecturer made it up! Million_Moments 09:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories:Philosophy vs. Categories:Philosophy[edit]

Dear Anarchia,

    So what does the above mean?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - gulp. I am hoping it doesn't mean I have done something stupid. Can you explain more clearly what you mean? Just had 13 5-6 year olds at my house, so not feeling very quick witted... Anarchia 04:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You visited my User page and made the following alteration (what does it mean?):
Notice the ":" before the "C"!
What does it do, and why did you do it?
--Ludvikus 19:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You committed that alleged Wiki "crime" (or was it not a crime?) on 08:21, 18 September 2007, Wiki time. --Ludvikus 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now I understand. When you put a colon in, as in [:cat:blahblah], it means that your userpage, or wherever the category name is, does not show up on the category list, but you still have the link there. When you put [:Category:Philosophy] on your page without the ':', it showed up on the Philosophy Category list, where it shouldn't ought to be. Make sense? Anarchia 20:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern Rationalism[edit]

fair enough, I will not contest prod. it was only made as part of the project, I dont know anything about it --Astrokey44 09:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from Jaymay[edit]

Hi, Anarchia. I just wanted to say thanks for the barnstar! I did put a lot of work into some of those moral philosophy entires. I hope to do some more soon! -- Jaymay 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Biological imperative(s)[edit]

Hi, I noticed your note on one of the relevant talk pages above. I am happy to do the merge, but which title would you prefer it under? I am loathe to wait for discussion on the talk pages because your appeal for discussion has been unfortunately fruitless and you seem to have impetus and interest in the topic. Which article title would be more natural? Jdcooper 23:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mixed! I think the wikipedia rule is to use the singular rather than the plural in titles. But, I do understand the thoughts of the person who started the new page - i.e. arguably there is more than one biological imperative. Mind you, there is more than one automobile, but 'automobile' is the page name, and more than one form of contextualism, but 'contextualism' is the name of the article. So, I guess, back to the singular term? What do you think? And thank you for providing some impetus here. I see many more things that need to be done than I have time to work on wikipedia! Anarchia 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

All Blacks[edit]

I know, that ref was completly biased to France, come on! Foward Pass, OffSide the ref didnt take any notice —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My daughter reckons he wasn't biased, just couldn't keep up with the game - you should have heard her scream at that point in the game - only thing that cheered her up was your edits. Anarchia 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5[edit]

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

Invisible Barnstar[edit]

Shucks, thanks. Just helping where I can, and as time permits. 271828182 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On October 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New Zealand Journal of Forestry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Kidnly nominated by PFHLai. Do feel free to self nominate in future. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007[edit]

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 16 November, 2007, a fact from the article Attitude polarization, 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.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates[edit]

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup", "merge" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 08:47 7 December 2007 (GMT).

AfD nomination of Brhmaand Pujan and Naresh Sonee[edit]


On the topic of Naresh Sonee, I have been helping a new person User:Dralansun put up their article. I don't think that notability has been proven yet. I declined it earlier on WP:AFC due to lack of references. The user involved has been asking for my assistance, although I think the effort would be better spent elsewhere. When it comes to countries with lower standards of internet connection, google hit assessment is a bit hit and miss when determining importance. We need to have an Indian expert consider the matter! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anarchia[edit]

I am Alan Sun, First of all please forgive me as I am popping or approaching in to answer your good self queries without taking your permission. I admit such is a non etiquette from my side as your letter is addressed to ‘Graeme’ and not me . However , you reserve full right to raise any sort of objection. But if you permit I would like your good self to consider my voice too, before Graeme reply to your good self. Within couple of days I will be posting Hindi language news papers reviews and news of various news papers of india . Kindly find a Hindi reader or translator to verify my claim

Answeringall of your questions. First of all. All popular search engine like google or yahoo give strong and enough reasons to believe that ‘Naresh Sonee’ has more than 20 pages on any search engine to his credit. By just writing ‘Naresh Sonee’ on any search window . The pages automatically appears. For instance … All below searches are related to Naresh Sonee. Just now I wrote Naresh Sonee on google Results are ,,,,, By writing … Time God Naresh Sonee By writng… Naresh Sonee Pope By writing …. Gay Demand Bush Tony and the search comes on and on…..

Now the question is a ‘voice’ is a voice & a news is a ‘news’ . You self can raise or other raise for you. Shakesphere promoted self. Many great revolutionary leaders came out with their own news papers. Such thing -Either they come from a lay man or Benedict Pope is immaterial. Writers are writers whether they are renowned or anonymous. When a media and mass reports an information. They are for mass ears and minds to think, talk and act. When a sensational issue is raised for the betterment of the world on a whole the development or revolution may begin from a scratch. Great concerns from a ‘no man’ from alien countries should not be under estimated. If an author ignore to care Literary Communities that does not prove he is a fellow without act or art. Some poor writers don’t have money to get register with such communities. So if they can’t effort or are unable that do not prove they are nuts.

To your second question raised - Infact, Though I am an English but has strong examples to prove that English Literary Community give a rare third degree approach to third countries writers specially from place India where British once ruled. If it is not ego but otherwise. And if you speak about this queen’s language , you see when it comes to US English. It hopelessly differ from UK English. That doesn’t mean that the US or third countries writers’ ‘thoughts or information have no crucial value for Wikipedia or world.

Anarchia, The discussion may never end if we go on discussing or discouraging a non English writer of third country disqualifying his wise views which are actually novel and one of its type. Wisdom cannot be ruled out from the author in question. Poetry writing or criticizing poetry of others are two great issue need not to be debated here. I had tried once but I ended with writing none. And that promoted me to write for Sonee. He has a wonderful rhyming art of writing in self language Hindi and my mother tongue. Study on internet. On the contrary we learned people, should never ignore the fact that what all it take to learn other’s country language. Yes Anarchia it’s real hard. And this fellow I have said is a college drop out. But I have seen that in poetries he can give tuff to any English poet. Today people are appreciating Haiko and what not. Even when brilliant readers or audience don’t understand what it mean, they applaud.

Anarchia , I had have being trying to learn Hindi since nine long years but I ended no where till date. So I gave up and started improving at least my mother tongue. And that’s what we are all doing here. Giving or learning how to write or give final touch. But I am horrible in writing you know now. But I feel you greatly can understand my feeling . And that what is important. So unless one understand the rigorous pain one under go or experience while learning other’s language, one can never empathy or estimate the pain on the other side.

Dear Anarchia , leave learning other’s language but I don’t feel the shame to say that I am very bad in commanding my own language ‘my mother tongue English’. It make me hard to believe that -Graeme who once rejected and omitted my page on Sonee a year back has turned out to be an angel for me now. Even you.

However, till today I did never knew you & he or some one else appearing angels were editing my page. I was very happy un till now , when I came to know from your addressed letter above to Graeme. I request not to knock me out. It will take time , but certainly I am gathering his Hindi Poems which will be put and translated here with your good selves approval. It appear from my page that dear Graeme and your good self have edited and beautified, transformed a lot by sparing or allotting your precious time to my pages.

Anarchia, You see Needless to say Sonee is already hated by many as because the blunt issues he is raising fearlessly are enough controversial. It’s like opening a Pandora box of hatred. His life is at stake. So you will never come across Sonee’s photo anywhere. Many working behind the wikipedia itself may dislike this person if they happen to be very religious or from LGBT cult. In future too there are many chances that such communities and cults come on this page , and would criticize Sonee’s view point or subject the matter for deletion.

Few more example I wish to be amicably debated by wise Brilliant Editors concerned to Wikipedia and this I address to your good self too.

For instance, 1) In Wikipedia you come on many personal site of people who all had created their own individual name page, showing their profile etc which look more like advt. or hobby info.

2) On wikipedia seekers and searchers get information of a Hollywood individual who selfly promote, produce, direct, edit and act in own film and then list them in Wikipedia. Does this self promoter or producer require to take any university, acknowledgment as reliable source ? Needless to stamp that such people are thorough doing biz or advt.on wikipedia.Actors grow rich without noble act or cause. Unlike them Sonee is a non professionalist to promote self which wise can empathy and understand. You must have read me on his page.

3)Same reasoning of reliability goes for Messiahs and Prophets like Jesus, Ram , Mohamed, Buddha. Except one all were non English. Which reliable source can guarantee that they actually took birth ( existed) and were magical in act/or just fairy tails floated for professionalize religions ? , Can Historiography prove the existence of 1000 year past- God or God men? Can you de list or delete Jesus from Wikipedia? posing him a poor illiterate Shepard ? Was he from literary community , oxford, Cambridge or otherwise? But If you still feel Literary community is essential to stamp , acknowledge or ascertain his views. Then perhaps I can't succeed to get approval from you. However, Apart from poems or writings Sonee can be listed for great thoughts, a global thinker, philosopher, a revolutionary etc..

3) Penguin can be a private publishers and money generator for self or other on professional term . Immaterial to big or small , poor or rich , remote or world known publishers . Should all be acknowledge as reliable sources under one eye. whether they selfly publish their work or give to some one else.

4) News Papers/Media, run by private or collective individuals big or small, famous or remotely known should they be considered as reliable source? If they provide free information. I can give add their reviews and news in Hindi of various Indian news papers. I can also provide Indian HRRD Government registration number of Sonee's book in question.

Anarchie, this Letter is scribbled to your good self urgently. Please try to understand my pain or feelings of convincing you. I apologies to debate but you see I am trying to get into Wikipedia this informative exposure since more than a year. –‘Thoughts & Guts make a revolution’. People like you and me should come forward to appreciate and encourage Naresh Sonee’s contribution to the world with a big supportive heart of wisdom or generosity. My sense or instinct says the page should come up. And You should be there on me to guide and guard this page along with Graeme for ever till you stay here. I request you. Thoughts and Acts of World should get clean up. People should know the selfless philanthropically activities Naresh Sonee is attempting or living for without any professional self interest or gains. Only wise, nice and sane thoughts can unite and shape the world and that what Sonee is trying . Your brilliant self , & Wikipedia should help the cause. At last I request to stay on this page and help Graeme. Already you have done a lot by improving or cleaning it. True Regards. God bless you always. -AlanSun-- (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep my pages[edit]

Dear Anarchia, Please Keep my page on hold . As I don't know the procedure involved . Please keep my page Naresh Sonee & Brhmaand Pujan . Within couple of days I am going to submit / add a brief translation in English of 8 to 10 Indian (non English) Hindi newspapers reviews & news covering 'newspapers names,date of publication , a brief translated summary of these matter published on Naresh Sonee & Brhmaand Pujan . If you wish I can also create a URL templete covering such photo scanned copies of such 'news & reviews'. Kindly extent your co operation to hold & keep my page & do the needful. -Alan Sun--- (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Anarchie to care me. Yes I will try to convince you. Hold down for couple of days more. I will receive news & reviews on Naresh Sone & Brhmaand Pujan till then by my email.Sorry to keep you holding. Till then kindly keep my page on hold. -Alan Sun--- (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anarchia, I have posted indian newspapers reviews on my page Soon I will add more . Please verify the facts. Keep please sustain my pages From Indian News papers, I have started collecting, adding reviews, articles on Naresh Sonee Please read the same . I have also submitted on original page Naresh Sonee under Indian News papers reviews . few more Newspapers Original scanned copy in picture jpeg form I have received via email. I am getting translation done by me itself. But if any of your goodself too could help I can post here to you or anywhere you need them. These reviews / new/ articles from.... Few Notability,Sourced Hindi Newspapers References from leading & prominent Newspapers of India Reviews-News coverage Naresh Sonee & [[Brhmaand Pujan] .

Re Nominate Naresh sonee page and KEEP it alive please Dear Anarchia, Zetawoof, Double Blue, SatyaTN, Meanwhile, I have already added two newspaper translated reveiws on Naresh Sonee page as per your instruction. In day or two I will be adding more. Your goodself were the Editors who were looking after my page. I have also requested Graeme, Kindly when ever your good selves feel free or have time, you'll feel free to edit Naresh Sonee & Brhmaand Pujan pages. I again request you'll to edit, improve & beautiyfy the same more.I can also email or post here scanned copies of newspaers of India. If there still exist some doubt in you in my integrity. or for my Guru Naresh Sonee. Please also see that the page sustain / exist for good global noble reasons and reactions. I am not here to spread hatred in world. Regarding the lines you object 'contraversial poet' - 'aroused reaction' on my page etc . Some editor must have changed my original script. Genuinely I have nothing to do with all that. If you check my first day page,of Dec 2007. My original lines says-

Naresh Sonee Sohum Sutra is an Indian poet-author born on 11th February 1958 in Phagwara- Punjab . He is a commerce college drop out. At the age of four he and his three sisters along with his parents shifted their base to Mumbai . His father was a small time ‘wrist watch parts’ business man. Naresh Sonee enjoyed an in built quality of scribbling rhymes since the age of eleven. He writes in his country language Hindi as well as English . -'

Some editors must had done changes of words, sentences for the sake of improvement. such change and added contraversial line 'aroused reaction etc... were not put by me.If you can check with your tools , check it out.I am innocent. Those are not my line. Any way I will re put to original line. But 'You all Dear' please also guide how can one keep constant tract on it done pages reading, verfying them time & again. You too will agree , It is not possible for me to guard my page every hour. if some new editor add such line innocently or ignorantly to improve the compostion. What can I do? Pls help me all of you. In due course I also fear that rigid religious or LGBT group/individual can also jump / interfere with my page to play mischief in editing in the name of improving or cleaning up. So guide me the right way as you all are all expert. Save rescue me please. Sincere Request-Alan Sun--- (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XX - January 2008[edit]

The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 12:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the star! I will try and be more frugal with the edits, and I'm already trying to use the summaries - just not really in the habit so I keep forgetting.Tkn20 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Guilty pleasure[edit]

Hi, an article you've edited, Guilty pleasure, has been nominated for deletion. It's AfD nomination is here. --Loodog (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I just wanted to say that I enjoy seeing your contributions to wikipedia and I like your username. Hope to see more of your edits in the future! :) --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXI - February 2008[edit]

The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --10:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Academic Journals Collaboration notice[edit]

P writing.svg
The current WikiProject Academic Journals Collaboration of the Week is
Electrical Experimenter
Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008[edit]

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election[edit]

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIII - April 2008[edit]

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors

Book collection.jpg
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXIII - April 2008
Project news
  • Elections are now taking place for coordinators of the project for the next six months. Any editors interested in seeking a coordinator position, or who want a say in who is selected, should indicate as much here.
Member news
  • The project has currently 381 members, 69 joined & 0 leavers since the start of March 2008.
Other news
Task force news
Novel related news
Current debates
  • There is a discussion regarding further task forces for other genres of fiction now taking place here.
From the Members

Welcome to the Twenty Third issue of the Novels WikiProject's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.

We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask.

Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk), Initiating Editor

Collaboration of the Month
Newsletter challenge

Last month's challenge (South Wind) was completed by member User:Blathnaid with a nice starting stub.

  • The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Kate Christensen's 2008 PEN/Faulkner award winner The Great Man.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

John Carter (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008[edit]

The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism of the metaphysical kind[edit]

Hey could you review my entry on the Libertarianism (metaphysical) talkpage? I want to add the Black Swan but I need to get clarity on what I got on Leibnez/Lossky first.

Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXV - June 2008[edit]

The June 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveBot (owner) 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence[edit]

Hello. I'm contacting you and other members of WikiProject Books in order to find if you are interested in collaborating to expand and improve The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence article to make it worthy of becoming a featured article candidate, in light of the fact that it is the first book the U.S. government ever went to court to censor before its publication. --Loremaster (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello! I've seen you around Wikipedia and I just wanted to let you know that you might be interested in this. Hope to see you around more and happy editing! :) --Grrrlriot (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello. I've created, as a stub, the article Australasian Association of Philosophy, which you might be interested in contributing to. Llamabr (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling all active WP:NOVELS members[edit]

WikiProject Novels Roll Call
Book collection.jpg

WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved!

Next month we will begin the coordinator election selection process. We hope to have more involvement and input this time around! More news will be forthcoming. Thanks, everyone! María (habla conmigo) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - September 2008[edit]

This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Philosophical comics[edit]

I have nominated Category:Philosophical comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Sikh philosophy[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Sikh philosophy, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Sikh philosophy has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Sikh philosophy, 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I invite your comment on an article[edit]

It's one in a series of philosophy articles where there are no secondary sources indicating that other people find the philosopher in question important. In this case, it has been substantially edited by the subject, who also added his name to the Existence article so as to not be an orphan. He's a prominent academic philosopher and certainly deserves mention. I've tried to swing the article away from it sounding like he's claiming to have bested Kant, Quine and Frege on several issues and intend to try and bring in the perspective that's actually on the Existence page - which is that he is simply one of several modern philosophers who are working in a particular vein. There are names for his various theories (which he didn't invent, but which are applied to his views in the secondary literature), and criticisms of them too, of course, which is also left out of the article. It makes the article unbalanced, but he thinks my edits are heavy-handed. I don't have time to look up secondary literature for him, and so I think some of his claims should be pared down until someone does do that work. He has listed himself as a prominent metaphysician (etc.) and I'm wondering what you think of people tooting their own horns in this manner. What can be done about it? Just doesn't seem quite right. Thanks for any input. It's [Nathan Salmon]. He's asked for someone else to edit his article who is more familiar with philosophy but frankly, since it's of such low importance, I don't see a big rush of people doing it. I started it as a copyedit/clean-up issue and did indicate on the discussion page that I'd try to find more competent people to comment.Levalley (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this probably doesn't belong here[edit]

Hi, Mckaywiii here; Wiki doesn't permit "mckaywiii" , new editing "tool" for philosophy and objectivism projects (and assorted other interests- esp proofreading!!)

I have some questions about

setting up my user page. Is there a way we can talk "offline"? "". I don't think this goes on the talk page. but I don;t know where this type communication goes. Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckaywiii (talkcontribs) 06:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC) --Mckaywiii (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Kant images[edit]

I have nominated Category:Kant images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Immanuel Kant images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 08:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Philosophy of human nature[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Philosophy of human nature, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Greg Bard (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Philosophers of art[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Philosophers of art, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Logic Task Force[edit]

I see you are a participant of WikiProject Logic, but your user page does not display the task list. Please see comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy#WikiProject Logic Philogo (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Anarchia!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion[edit]

Hello Anarchia, I have recently created an account on the wikipedia because I was reading Quine and wanted to find more information on a term online. The term was not mentioned on wikipedia, so I decided to create a new page. I copied a lot from other articles (style/format/code for links and such) and I think I did pretty well. However, I was hoping for some feedback/comments or a second opinion. So, I posted some remarks on some wikiprojects, but I have not seen any comment yet. Since you are in the logic task force, I thought you might be interested to at least take a look and let me know what you think, not only about the content, but also about the wiki-things I might not have known about. Below I will place a short list of some changes I proposed but have not seen any feedback on and one page I created. I am hoping you will comment on them:

Vivid Designator==>new page I mentioned
Salva Veritate
De Dicto and De Re
Existential Generalization
Universal Instantiation
Thanks in advance!
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)