User talk:Gregbard/Archive 3

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

Contents

template:infobox philosopher

Hi,

I've undone this edit. Aside from introducing unnecessary additional whitespace below the template's transclusions, directly categorising articles using templates such as infoboxes is discouraged: see WP:TEMPLATECAT. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you've undone this again. What purpose does this category serve? There doesn't appear to have been any discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy or elsewhere regarding its creation and there is no explanatory text on the Category:Infobox philosopher maintenance page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I do a lot of tedious maintenance in the philosophy department. I use AWB to create worklists. The existence of this category helps make the list for infobox maintenance. For me, the alternative involves several inconvenient steps. It is a hidden category, so I don't see what the priority is. The guideline you referred to, specifically provides for this exact usage. What's up? Greg Bard (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you mind documenting this somewhere? It's two minutes' work which stops curious onlookers who happen upon curious templatespace edits from badgering you with silly questions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll add that to my list of things to do.Greg Bard (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yo, Hom(ie|er) I was wondering if you could address this

My understanding is that Science has been leaving Philosophy, and for good reason: there have been centuries of violence between the two. For me the difference is rationale, the philosophic revolution, VS intuition, which is how models are developed by scientists from long observation who model logic with imagination, and apparently comes from, of all places, theology. Empiricism has produced some faulty concepts, most glaring being Aristotle's astronomy which ultimately resorted to the inquisition to protect it, a creation of Plato. Perhaps it is time to let go, peacefully, for that long sleep called history.--John Bessa (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please add this to your watchlist:

Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Theosophy

I am confused. Why do you not conside Theosophy a part of Philosophy? It has a long history up through today of active philosophers? Theology, Ontology, Phil of Science etc. JEMead (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Also - please look at http://www.iep.utm.edu/submit/100-most/ JEMead (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand your concern. I find it unfortunate that IEP is considering theosophy for coverage, although I suppose I can understand it in the context of ancient and medieval history of philosophy. Theosophy isn't philosophy, it's religion. At some point we have to have standards for what is and is not philosophy, otherwise we get voodoo bullshit all over the place. The standard I use is that the methodology requires the use of reason. Once you get into theosophy, you no longer are on a foundation of reason, but rather relying on other methods that prevail in the conclusions. I remove from the project the vast majority of articles dealing with mysticism, occult, esotericism, theology, spiritualism. It's no longer philosophy at that point, it's religion. At some point I would love to see WikiProject Philosophy be a strong enough community that we could manage a Category:Pseudophilosophy category, but I don't know for sure how cohesive the group is on those issues. Greg Bard (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
a peer-reviewed organization is peer-reviewed because it understands the actual topic, and does not get confused with Contemporary usage. If we allow the contemporary usage to drive what is Philosophy - then all academic input is not needed. Please take a look at this from an academic viewpoint. I will be the first to admit that the current usage of the term is distorted, on purpose, by various organizations. We are above that here. I am trying to correct the contemporary mess. Pure Academic thought is needed here. We may need an arbitrator. I pointed this out to Sunray. Why do you not ask the IEP why it is so important to them? I think they will have excellent reasons. JEMead (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be two articles about it. Whether or not it has the project tag is really not a big deal. If at least some editors want to keep track of it, that is fine with me. It is the content and categories on the article page that matter.Greg Bard (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll be adding more pieces. The religious followers of Blavatsky et al are precisely what are being removed. Going back to the academic side as much as I can get away with. Just more of them than me. JEMead (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I also wanted to point out the following: http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=esotericism and http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Theosophy
the point is that your opinion of Theosophy may actually come from the confusion caused by Blavatsky? I do not consider her a Theosophist; except possibly as a brief footnote. She stole a term in current use at that time, and created a religion out of it (Secret Doctrine defining the one Belief that was correct etc). The actual academic Theosophy stream kept flowing, and she was not a part of it. JEMead (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ressentiment (Scheler), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology (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) 10:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete CfD

Please note that a discussion was never created for Category:Stub-Class philosophy articles by work group, which you nominated for deletion. Feel free to renominate. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

FAR Transhumanism

I have nominated Transhumanism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Itsmejudith (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hi Gregbard! Are you one of the IHEU 's members?

If yes I will be glad to talk with you about IHEU & it's activities. Have a good time.

My mail : mortezam1388@yahoo.com Bye. Mortezam1388 (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What is fiction?

Is this section accurate? Is it complete? Please take a quick look. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Gregbard,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Unintended consequences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consequence (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) 10:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

fyi

Greg, have you looked at the “truth” table being used to push his POV? It would be a understatement to say most of his contributions have been OR, supported with bogus citations. Surely those are not the kind of contributions you were looking forward to at lc., and surely you didn't notice the personal attack against the IP who had been calling him on his nonsense at the AfD, although I linked to it… Because I'd bet money you can read a truth table, and I can't imagine you'd encourage an obstinate, incompetent, and deceptive SPA.—Machine Elf 1735 23:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with the truth table is that the section gives a "textbook" format, and WP is not a textbook. What POV are you talking about?!?! I think you have gone off the deep end, and I don't think you really know what POV is vis-a-vis mathematical logic.Greg Bard (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Greg, I don't claim to be an expert on logic. Until now, I admired you, but characterizing me as "going off the deep end" is uncalled for when many editors consistently reject his pet theories and sourcing. How does insisting on WP:V constitute going off the deep end? He knew exactly what he needed to remove, and yet, when he finally did, he characterizes it as placating me, rather than complying with policy. Still, I spent time supporting what he was trying to say in the remainder of his article, with WP:ATTRIBUTEd statements from an WP:RS. So Greg, I don't know if you think Dorothy Edgington was engaged in polemics, or you're just bitter about mathematical logic, but perhaps you would enlighten me as to what you mean by saying I don't know what POV is in terms of it. I'm a computer programmer, but I suck at math, so I'm certainly willing to learn from your advice, if it's genuine.
In answer to your question, most obviously, the example isn't even intended to be an example of a tautological consequence. Second, c isn't entailed by a and b, contrary to the claim. So silly me, maybe I was wrong and you can't tell he likes to assign truth values independently to the conclusion, as if it were a premise, Greg. I guess he just decides then, whether or not he thinks it's all really true—or maybe he thinks arguing from a contradiction is clever (at least that would suggest he can see what he's doing). However… third, it's not even remotely similar to the syllogism it supposedly represents, which, fourth: could be presented as a tautological consequence in both propositional and predicate forms, no? Fifth, that would obviously be a critical distinction the article needs to make prior to redirecting pages from the superior treatment at tautology, (I wonder why it's been omitted, that too could have been copied, along with a decent example). Anyway, it'll probably get "merged" back into there sooner or later.
Good luck with reversing the l.c. merge. I had read the history when I saw you preferred the old version. (Am I a sucker, or what?) I thought the old version read more clearly, but rest assured, I won't trouble you again if I can help it.—Machine Elf 1735 03:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so you have confirmed what I suspected, that you throw around the term "POV" and don't really know the proper use of it. I'm sorry about saying you went "off the deep end", I'm a little sensitive because I've seen it a million times in the math department. So, to be clear, you don't have a POV issue, you just don't like the style, and I do not substantially disagree with you. However, I'm not an immediatist. Furthermore, you presume to know my reasons for supporting "the old version," and it wasn't the text, but the title "logical consequence." In all of the literature I have seen (a lot) the prevailing term that is considered to be a major concept is "logical consequence." In fact, all of logic can be thought of as attempts to create models of logical truth, and logical consequence. So that's pretty important. Any help moving that article back would be appreciated, and I'm confident we will agree on almost all of the details after that. Greg Bard (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I must throw pretty far Greg, not counting the request to explain, I used the term POV pushing, once, that would be in reference to the quixotic user pushing his point of view. Feel free to scoff, but that's perfectly obvious. I suppose answering the question you should have asked was a bit factitious: "what's conspicuously not at all wonderful about it?" While I appreciate the gesture of not necessarily disagreeing with some kind of style issue, clearly, all five points were substantive. It's hard to imagine what suspicions you're insinuating were confirmed, and I have no idea what you've seen a million times, or what irritates you, because you can't be bothered to tell me what you mean by any of it. And of course, I assumed you meant the old content, if that's not the case, why complain about the merge? Why not just suggest the merged article be renamed? but never mind. I wouldn't begrudge the user a friend and confident; He's really quite forthcoming about his goals. Were you to read what he says, your guess would be as good as mine in regard to stripping all mention of "if then" from the syllogism example taken from Tautology as well as from the material conditional article, and substituting "and". which makes no sense whatsoever, (can you hear me now), much less a good faith effort to disabuse high school kids of the misconceptions they've been taught in school. The NPOV policy prohibits removing material on that basis, fyi.—Machine Elf 1735 00:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Eden Triad

It's a minor concept from a book by the fringe author Laurence Waddell & I'm turning it into a redirect to the book. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks.Greg Bard (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

l== Category:Logical symbols ==

Shouldn't Category:Logical symbols be a subcategory of Category:Logical expressions, rather than the other way around? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You know Arthur, it's a good question. When I think of an "expression" I think it consists of one or more symbols. Logical symbols I think of as individual symbols. However every individual symbol can be thought of as an expression. So I am open minded as to how to organize it. However we should choose one way and stick to it. It is an interesting situation. Usually we want a subcategory to be entirely instances of it's category. In this case, it works both ways.Greg Bard (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
A symbol is an expression, but an expression is not nec a symbol, so Category:Logical symbols is a subcat of Category:Logical expressions and not vice versa. (At present each is placed as a subcat of the other, which implies they are synonymous and should be merged.) Oculi (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
They certainly should not be merged. The difference is between individual symbols and strings of symbols. Please leave the decision up to the logicians.Greg Bard (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

People's Party (United States) vandalism or accident w/ Marion Butler's name?

Hi, you seem to have edited the People's Party (United States) article to replace all mention of Marion Butler's name with "Marion Bu ler," which simply isn't correct. Can you explain why? John Thacker (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have looked into this matter. I have no idea exactly what caused this, but it was inadvertent and unnoticed by myself until you pointed it out to me. My apologies and thank you for pointing it out to me. I will be mindful of this type of thing in the future.Greg Bard (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hello Gregbard, 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 language 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) 07:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Philosophical expertise needed.

Would you mind taking a look at look at Destiny#Philosophy? Editor2020 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Johnston Diagram- A nand B.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Johnston Diagram- A nand B.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. MGA73 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Johnston Diagram- Not Converse of If A then B.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Johnston Diagram- Not Converse of If A then B.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Johnston Diagram Not If a Then b.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Johnston Diagram Not If a Then b.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Material implication

Done, Gregbard. You can see the results here if my edit hasn't been reverted. Apparently the admins thought the sources were unreliable,
so I added a source from the Mathematical Assocation of America. Thank you for cleaning up after my mess of articles.

~Doot~ (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for working in a neglected area... and don't worry about what Rubin says too much :> I have a few sources to add too. Greg Bard (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Then do so. No sources yet presented actually state that "material implication" is a rule. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Discission, not just edit war

Such interaction pattern as demonstrated by [1] does not conform to the English Wikipedia behavioural standards. I explained why I reverted you, but you did not. Pushing your point via an edit war without even attempts to persuade opponents will be counter-productive, for you point and for your (possibly) useful contribution. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! This is a very noncontroversial issue. You asked for some citation and I provided it. So what is the problem? Say listen, these terms are pretty well known: Copi, Paker/Moore, Hurley are three of the most popular logic texts ever. They all have it. Greg Bard (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Tautology

It's not quite law of identity. What you're probably looking for is the rule:

If , then , where C[B/A] consists of C with one or more instances of A replaced by B. But that's not quite the law of identity, nor anything explicitly written in any Wikipedia article. It probably should be.

Alternatively, what we want is that if is a tautology, replacing B by A is a rule of replacement. Again, the statement should be somewhere, but [[Law of identity|Tautology]] is not the way to go. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of. Thanks.Greg Bard (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Exportation (logic) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Conditional statement
Material implication (rule of inference) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Conditional statement
Transposition (logic) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Conditional statement

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy maintenance

Category:Philosophy maintenance, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rule of inference: Names

As per my comment in Talk:Tautology (rule of inference); we should have a centralized location to comment on what the names of these rules are in different sources. I was thinking Talk:Rule of inference or Template talk:Rules of inference. In any case, the discussion should be announced to both philosphy and mathematics WikiProjects. Your call as to where to announce it to the former project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The template Template:Rules of inference, has been depreciated in favor of Template:Transformation rules.Greg Bard (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Biconditional introduction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Converse
Destructive dilemma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Antecedent

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. When you recently edited Modus ponens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statement (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) 10:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions on the Structuration theory page appreciated!

Hello! My name is MJ. I'm a new editor on Wikipedia. I have recently completed some large-scale edits to the Structuration theory page. I saw that you've been active on its Talk page in the past, and I wanted to invite you to return and add your comments and suggestions about the page concerning its readability, clarity, usefulness, and/or comprehensiveness-- or anything you'd like to add to the discussion/dialogue around the page! As I said, I'm a new editor on Wikipedia. The structuration theory page has been rated "Highly important" to the Sociology WikiProject, and I'm concerned with making sure that the page is both accurate and informative for readers who want to know more about this important sociological theory. More than anything, I'd like to inspire a discussion about the changes that have been made, improvements, or support. Any suggestions you have are gladly received! And I can't emphasize enough that it would be so helpful to me as a new editor to see others' comments. I hope to see you on the Talk page soon! Mjscheer (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A new message from Jean-François Monteil

(79.90.42.125 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)) Dear Gregbard, in 2011, I sent the following message

Dear Gregbard, thank you for creating the article Robert Blanché. I have about Structures intellectuelles written a short neutral text that may be informative for the potential reader.Robert Blanché died in 1975. Nine years before,in 1966, he published with Vrin: Structures intellectuelles. Therein, he deals with the logical hexagon. Whereas the logical square or square of Apuleius represents four values: A,E,I,O , the logical hexagon represents six, that is to say, not only A,E,I,O but also two new values: Y and U. I should be glad if you could illustrate the short text by inserting underneath the figure of the logical hexagon as you did for the article logical hexagon, so judiciously created by you a few weeks ago. It goes without saying that the best would be that both the logical square and the logical hexagon might be represented. Side by side. Yours cordially. Jean-François Monteil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean KemperN (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (Jean KemperN (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC))(cf. here).

Of course, I reiterate the expression of my gratitude. If you want to know what I'm doing now, I advise typing on Google: Knol 000 and click on Présentation des trois collections de Jean-François Monteil. If you click on ENG Knol 000 The Google knol, Wikipedia, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, you'll know what I think of wikipedia and how I envisage its function. The way I react to the failure of the knol system is good policy on my part. Before ending, I stress the importance of Blanché's hexagon for thanks to it I found the formula of strict implication: p ≡ Lq. The question was raised by CI Lewis a century ago. My advice: read me and to say it in Latin Lege, quaeso, Domine. Yours cordially. JF M

An award for you

A Barnstar!
Golden Wiki Award

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.7.36 (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Weird cat

Hi, I do not understand this edit at all. Wheeler was neither a philosopher nor Indian. At best, he was an imperialist pseudo-historian. (I write that as a Brit myself!) Am I missing something? - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The article states that he was appointed "professor of moral and mental philosophy." so he is more qualified for that category than many of the other so-called "Indian philosophers." I monitor the new philosophy articles and make sure that they are in the propoer philosophy categories. If it turns out that the instituion he taught at was some flim-flam operation, or that he never taught anything like ethics, metaphysics, etcetera, then perhaps it should be removed. However that remains to be seen. However anyone who taught philosophy academically is going to be under the philosophy category in some capacity. Greg Bard (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, of course. Presidency College is a well-known and respected institution (or was, since it now forms part of a larger unit). However, it was a pretty new college then and formed a part of the very small (2000 or so) British establishment that somehow managed to control an Indian populace of nearly 700 million people. I am not entirely convinced that the professorship was of any great import, and certainly the title (moral and mental philosophy) was one of those that - back then - was sometimes thrown around like confetti. Anyway, thanks for explaining and I'll see what else I can dig up on the guy: the article is one of my creations but I doubt it will attain the detail of, for example, H. H. Risley. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Refactoring other users' comments

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No David, they aren't. Any reasonable person of normal sensitivity can see that. Stop making problems, and learn how to behave respectfully.Greg Bard (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I second after David Eppstein. [2] is silly: "== Diagram ==" is a poor, confusing, not descriptive header. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I object to personalizing the issue. name it whatever you want.Greg Bard (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact

I disagree with your removal of cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact from the philosophy project.[3] While it is indeed true, that as a whole, this specific subject has been avoided by many philosophers, it is a topic directly related to philosophy and the philosophy of science, and should be tagged under that task force. Relevant research can be found in the philosophical work of Jacques Arnould, Lewis White Beck, Wilfrid Desan, Steven J. Dick, Margaret R. McLean, Jan Narveson, Edward Regis, Jr., Nicholas Rescher, Jean Schneider, Olaf Stapledon (a philosopher who used fiction to discuss his ideas) and the philosophical movement of Russian cosmism espoused by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.

To quote Beck directly:

...many of the problems our scientific colleagues are raising, such as those of the criteria of life, mind, intelligence, and language, and the future viability of our civilization, are problems about which we philosophers have much to say. There are new sciences like exobiology whose foundations are in need of philosophical scrutiny. When the National Academy of Sciences explicitly calls attention to the philosophical dimensions and ramifications of the problem, it seems to me we philosophers should relax our ban on cosmological speculation and think about possible worlds that may actually exist.[4]

Lastly, historian of science Steven J. Dick places this subject in the context of one of the oldest known philosophical questions:

The philosophical question that dominated the problem of the origin of life beyond the Earth, however, was not so much the nature of life as the role of change and necessity in its formation. On the latter question, after all, hinged the whole enterprise of exobiology, for if life was a chance occurrence with very low odds, it need never happen again, no matter how big the universe and how expansive the time available. One might never come to the question of the nature of life in the universe if it could not exist in the first place. In entering that debate, biolgoists were tackling one of the oldest questions in philsophy; the ancient Greet atomist Democritus had written that "Everything existing in the Universe is the fruit of chance and necsesity." From physics to ethics, and occasionally even in early debates on the spontaneous generation of life, this philosophical question loomed but seldom brought consensus.[5]

The list of philosophers and philosophers of science I provided above that discuss these ideas is just a sample. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatev. If you want to tag it as part of the project, that's fine with me.Greg Bard (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I was just lobbying you, as a member of the project, to consider it. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Language Houses (Chico).jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Language Houses (Chico).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Category question

Hi Greg, I was wondering why you removed Steven Sapontzis from the moral philosopher category. [6] I was thinking of restoring it but wanted to check with you first in case you had something specific in mind. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent question!! There are separate categories for Moral philosophers and Ethicists. Is this a REAL distinction? Well, it isn't clear. However some people are referred to as "ethicists" and some are referred to as "moral philosophers." In my mind, a moral philosopher is one who deals with meta-ethics, and an ethicist is one who deals with applied philosophy, for instance, dealing with particular issues like medicine, or criminal justice, etcetera. I am open-minded on who ends up where. Greg Bard (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Greg. I agree that not all ethicists (i.e. people who write about ethics) are moral philosophers, but Sapontzis is. I don't know what he wrote his PhD on, but he's an academic philosopher who has written about moral philosophy, both meta-ethics and applied. Do you mind if I restore the cat? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It's fine with me. I don't think they are exclusive of each other.Greg Bard (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Message from Jean-François Monteil

(84.101.36.175 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)) Type mindnewcontinent. Once again thanks for creating the article: logical hexagon. Cordially. JF Monteil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.36.175 (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cto

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Cto has been nominated for deletion. Template:Cto creates a conditional topic overview linkbox for the See also section of an article with links to (1) the topic article, (2) the outline of the topic, (3) the index of topic-related articles, (4) the bibliography of the topic, and (5) the Wikipedia book on the topic. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Cto. Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem/philosophy of religious language

Hi there Gregbard. I see you moved Philosophy of religious language to problem of religious langage yesterday. I just though I'd let you know of a discussion regarding the name of the article which took place here - that title was discussed, but a few expressed concern that calling it a 'problem' was not completely neutral (Ayer would not see it as a problem that religious language is meaningless). I'm happy to discuss this with you - I'm just wondering why you though 'problem' was more apt that 'philosophy' for the title of the article. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, for instance, is there any scholarly work anywhere referring to "philosophy of religious language?" "Philosophy of x" should be reserved for actual scholarly fields of study. You know, like there exists a university on earth that actually has a department, institute, center, or even small closet of an office with "philosophy of religious language" printed on the door. Is there such a thing as a "philosopher of religious language?" That is where to start. Otherwise, "problem of religious language" is more appropriate. I did post on the talk page about it. Greg Bard (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I just stumbled on this while leaving Gregbard a thank you note, but I thought I might be able to help on this one. There is a huge different between the philosophy of religious language and the problem of religious language. The philosophy of religious language has to do with the thought behind the meaning, symbolism, history and larger context of language or a part of language, while the problem of religious language has to do with how religious language is perceived by those who do not understand the philosophy of religious language. This is the same problem students run into when trying to understand the difference between the philosophy of history (the thinking about the use, role, meaning, intent, bias and symbolism of history) and the history of philosophy (this philosopher said that, this school of philosophy stated this, etc). I taught philosophy and religion since 1993 and thought this might help.The Moody Blue (Talk) 17:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories on The Revivalry

Thanks for adding the categories to The Revivalry - I completely forgot. I appreciate it. The Moody Blue (Talk) 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Logic literature

Category:Logic literature, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Brad7777 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:Flag of Brevard County, Florida.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Flag of Brevard County, Florida.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. 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 00:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving style

Greg, even by your standards this was a silly move,which will be tedious to correct. The article has been in many visual arts categories, and the categories an article is in are no real argument for anything, especially with people like you going around messing about with them. I hope you are not doing many more like this. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We disagree. There must be a problem with your "standards." Say listen, my goal is to make sure that things are connected conceptually. Many topics, while not themselves directly a part of the formal study of aesthetics still have an aesthetic component. My responsibility is to make sure that things are connected to their intellectual foundations so Wikipedia users are able to get an intellectual understanding of the subject matter. I wouldn't expect everyone to understand this concept. Please defer. I would support moving Style (aesthetics) to Style. Greg Bard (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously that's not going to happen, as there's a huge disarm page and no real case for a primary usage. This article started life as style in painting and, all too typically, the actual text has barely changed since. The current title would clearly cover style in literature, but the article clearly doesn't, and we know you aren't intending to add any because you never do that. I don't mind aesthetics being added, but I strongly object to visual arts being removed. If you want to increase understanding of your subject, then write some content to improve the mostly very poor articles instead of just corralling existing content on more specialized topics. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't even in the visual arts category. There just is no crying about this. I haven't taken anything away from anyone, and expanding the scope of the article could be the best thing that happens to it, especially if all the right people are able to find it in the proper place. I loathe parenthetical titles. We have actual English phrases for that. I don't see this as anything other than brainless territorialism. Labeling the category as (visual arts) limits the category to the point of limited usefulness. My main concern is that the Category be named "Style." However, we can't do that without the main article also being titled "Style" because we have one editor who is VERY ANAL about making sure that every category is named after its main article, even if that doesn't make any sense at all. I certainly would support moving "Style (aesthetics)" back to "Style (visual arts)", but since we have this editor to deal with that's impossible. Perhaps you would support that the category be left alone, and help me tell this editor to take a hike on this issue. Then you can name it anything you want as far as I'm concerned. Greg Bard (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It was and is in two VA categories (Painting and Art history). I have commented at the category debate. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

internal logic listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Internal logic. Since you had some involvement with the internal logic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chricho (talkcontribs) 14:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gregbard. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy.
Message added 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gregbard. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_20#Category:California_Polytechnic_State_University.2C_San_Luis_Obispo.
Message added 04:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 04:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

New Article

Hi Gregbard: Remember me? I'm back on Wikipedia, and I just created a recent article, although I don't know if it has been deleted yet. If it hasn't, can you help me improve its quality?

Thanks,

~Doot~ (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For Gregbard for being the diligent worker he is! ~Doot~ (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

California Polytechnic State University Move

Hello,

I respectfully object to your move of California Polytechnic State University to California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. This is a highly controversial issue, the least of which should be put up to editors for consensus. I ask that you move the article back to its original location--where it has been for a considerable amount of time--and ask for consensus before a potential further move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.142.236 (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was reached for the move. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  19:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Substitution (logic)

Could you have a look at Talk:Substitution (logic)#Closure Under Substitution? Cheers, —Ruud 17:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A message from Jean-François Monteil about one SemperBlotto

Dear Gregbard, please type on Google KNOLmnc 0 Deux cas servant à illustrer les conduites liberticides de certains acteurs de wikipedia : Kropotkine et Semperblotto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.243.132 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Category

Hello, Gregbard. I created a redirect here [7] and inserted a category. What do you think about it? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyg42047 (talkcontribs) 07:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Flag of Brevard County, Florida.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Flag of Brevard County, Florida.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Chivalry-Now

Thank you for adding the Chivalry-Now page to "WikiProject Philosophy" and the "Philosophy portal". Is there anything that we can do to add to this relationship? Many thanks, Sg647112c (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is this organization based?Greg Bard (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Chivalry-Now is organized in cyberspace. Its two founders reside in Connecticut and in New York; the other two members of the Council of Knights (its governing body) reside in South Africa and in Alabama. Please have a look around the forum (linked in the article) if you’d like. Sg647112c (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Stanford-ep-logo.jpg)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Stanford-ep-logo.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if you already know this, but it's pointless to put {{OTRS pending}} on an image marked as nonfree — you should mark it with the permissions template for the license that is being requested. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It's moot anyway as far as this particular image. I'll keep this in mind for the future. Thanks!Greg Bard (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:InPho.xcf)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:InPho.xcf. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:PhilPapers.xcf

Thanks for uploading File:PhilPapers.xcf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Orphaned non-free media (File:InPhO-sm-logo.xcf)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:InPhO-sm-logo.xcf. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:InPhO-sm-logo.xcf)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:InPhO-sm-logo.xcf. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:InPho

Hi, the output of this template produces an external link and a wikilink that both are bolded. As far as I can see, that is not according to the manual of style. I have no experience editing templates, so I didn't even try to correct this, but perhaps you can have a second look? Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a big deal. I have been working with that template and a few others (PhilPapers, SEP, IEP) , so I have left the bold as is. Don't worry, at some point I will unbold it, or someone else will unbold it for me for sure. However, I like being able to see what is going on while I'm still actively adding these things. Greg Bard (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
OK! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Index of logic articles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conditional disjunction and Situation (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) 11:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding category of ethics in clinical research

Hi there. Good afternoon! Hope you are doing fine. I want to merge this category with clinical research ethics. Will you please help me for that, or will you let me know your thoughts for the same? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes that looks wise. I took care of the redundancy. I'll keep and eye on that category, and help in any way I can. Stay cool!Greg Bard (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syntax (logic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Derivation (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) 12:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Metaphysical Cosmologies

Thanks for the comment on my Talk page.

The articles Celestial spheres and Dynamics of the celestial spheres deal with models of the universe that were founded variously on the model in Aristotle's Metaphysics and the model in Ptolemy's Almagest and Planetary Hypothesis. The fact that these cosmological models were later adapted to religious use by Muslim and Christian philosophers and theologians does not make them "spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism". They are quite properly about metaphysical cosmologies.

On another tangent, your recategorization led me to look at the article on Cosmology and find -- to my surprise -- that it does not discuss the anthropological use of the term, which is both scholarly and significant. There was a recent conference where astronomical and anthropological students of cosmology discussed there approaches; really interesting stuff and I have the proceedings buried somewhere in my study. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Insofar as "Celestial spheres" are concerned, it seems that Category:Early scientific cosmologies would suffice, which is under the scholarly and academic "physical cosmology" category tree, consistent with what you are saying. Greg Bard (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Scope and goals

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Scope and goals, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

obsolete

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Greg Bard (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the speedy tag placed here because I didn't think it met the criteria - then it occurred to me that appears that you yourself placed it on your own page. I looked at the history, and it looks like your the only major contributor (a couple tiny maintenance edits made by others). If you did tag your own page, I apologize for removing the tag - in the future, use {{Db-g7}}, to delete your own page if no one else has made significant contributions. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Public-benefit corporation

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gregbard. You have new messages at Talk:Public-benefit nonprofit corporation.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ego White Tray (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Neohumanism

Greg, rather than go back and forth with you about the category for Neohumanism, let me state categorically that Neohumanism is not appropriately described as "Philosophy of religion". Neohumanism emphasizes rationality and rejects all dogma, a distinguishing feature in every religion. The stance of Neohumanism on religion is to reject it, because religion tends to foster geosentiment, sociosentiment, superstition, and the like. Religion is divisive, whereas Neohumanism - with its principle of social equality - is unifying.

So give me another option that better suits Neohumanism. Currently, I have set the category to "Philosophical concepts". --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well first of all, there is a category for Social philosophy. Second of all, I am very familiar with humanism, in general, and I can tell you that it will be in all the same similar categories. In emphasizing rationality and rejecting all dogma, "a distinguishing feature in every religion," it is taking a position on -- you guessed it -- philosophy of religion. You have to understand that philosophy of religion includes (indeed consists mainly of) criticism of religion. Third of all, there is a distinction between "concepts" and "theories", and in that regard this would be under the "theories" category tree, not the "concepts" category tree. Greg Bard (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, you know more about the "categories" than I do. But I know more about Neohumanism than you do. And I don't feel comfortable with having the word "philosophy" appear in the categories only with "Philosophy of religion". I just looked at the Humanism article, and its list of categories does not include "Philosophy of religion". Hence I would rather not have it listed for Neohumanism. I see for the Humanism article: "Philosophical movements" and "Philosophy of life". I am okay with those. I am also okay with "Freethought". All of those have a tight connection with Neohumanism. So can you agree to the inclusion of those categories and the exclusion of "Philosophy of religion" (which also is not listed on the Humanism page)? --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Humanism is, in fact, within philosophy of religion. Say listen, this is nuts. Humanism is clearly a metatheory of religion. I think you are failing to understand the difference between Religion and Philosophy of religion. Philosophy of religion consists almost entirely of criticism of religion, and it is not the same at all as "religious philosophy." Greg Bard (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, Greg, if I fail to understand the distinction, others might also. That is what I want to avoid. "Humanism" is listed as a category for "Neohumanism". If Humanism does not require a category like "Philosophy of religion", then I do not see why Neohumanism would require it. Nevertheless, if you insist on adding "Philosophy of religion" to the category list for Neohumanism, I will no longer object as long as the other additions to the category list remain. Fair enough? --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes,. I think the fact that you don't see the distinction is the problem. Even "atheism" is within philosophy of religion. Philosophy is about using reason. So when you reason about religion, that's philosophy of religion. Greg Bard (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructive information and the help. I genuinely appreciate your taking the time to clarify these matters for me. Signing out...

--Abhidevananda (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your edit to Category:Freedom of speech. Perhaps you'd like to join as a participant at WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech? — Cirt (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt. I don't usually sign up to be a member of every WikiProject in which I am interested. However, I am a big supporter of these particular issues. In college, I was only the second student to ever chair a board of the university president, the University Speech and Advocacy Board. Every year, I used to get my tent and camping gear, and set up in our "Free Speech Area" on campus to register voters. So it is a very important issue for me.Greg Bard (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, if there's ever a WikiProject to join, it'd be this one, Freedom of speech is a value that hopefully is integral to most that contribute to Wikipedia. :) Up to you! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Categorization of ballot measures

Hi Greg, looks like you've taken on the monumental task of organizing the ballot measure articles. I'm impressed -- it's something I've wanted to take on for a long time, but I've never really had the stomach for such a huge project! Many thanks. (I was reminded of the need for this by the overview on the PBS News Hour this afternoon -- any chance you were inspired by same?) -Pete (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Pete, no I didn't catch that broadcast. However, I was a signature gatherer a long time ago. I do tend to get around Wikipedia, so it was actually just pretty random. Please do drop in on those categories, as it may require some proposals to move or delete. The challenge is coming up with categories and language that work for different states, and countries. I think Colorado and the UK just call any old thing a "referendum." Whereas, that term, in my mind is reserved for a ballot measure that overturns or confirms existing legislation. Greg Bard (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like the issue that got me tangled up years ago when I was thinking about this. (As a fellow philosophy major I'm sure you share my frustration over words that mean different things in different places…) Feel free to drop me a note whenever you encounter those issues. I'll try to watch some of those categories, but I often miss stuff -- I am more active some weeks than others… -Pete (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles

Hello, Gregbard. I thought you might want to know that I've created a couple more philosophy articles recently: The Theory of Good and Evil and Ethics (Watsuji). I thought you might have missed these. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate you for the Star of Sophia. (never mind. I already did a long time ago!) Greg Bard (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a kind gesture, though I don't expect to win. Here's another article: The Structure of Iki. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Sum of Logic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Antecedent and Conditional statement
Logical biconditional (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Antecedent

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inference, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conclusion (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) 11:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Vassyana talk

Hey, your post on User talk:Vassyana caught my attention. Just of note, he hasn't edited since 02/2011, so expecting a response might be unlikely. ;) Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 04:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. It's always hit or miss. You do what you can. I certainly invite you to that discussion.Greg Bard (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What is eet (symbol)?

The redirect is broken due to the template you have added to the page. What is eet? It's note just tee backwards is it? -- Patchy1 12:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


Hmmm. Yes, "eet" is just another name for the "up tack," or "falsum" (an upside down "tee"). If the redirect won't work with the lowercase title, we'll have to leave it out. However, I have never seen it capitalized. Thanks for the heads up.Greg Bard (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Atheism and empirical evidence

The link you removed was to Existence of God#Empirical arguments which discusses the lack of empirical evidence for a god, which seems to me to be the preferable link. Was there a reason that you decided to remove that link for a simple empirical evidence link? As I suspect you were trying to simplify the links, (you did not give a reason for your change) I have undone your edit. If there was a reason for that change, please feel free to redo your change. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly feel free. I am merely linking a recently expanded article. Up to this point there hasn't been an article with content for the topic "empirical evidence." Perhaps you should find a new formulation of the article so as to include it. But it's not a big deal at all. Greg Bard (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe linking Existence of God#Empirical arguments to empirical evidence? Currently it links to Empiricism Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Good call.Greg Bard (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

In the Talk page you said, about your "stab at... " of 07:07, 22 November 2012,[[8]] "The lede should consist in four paragraphs." Is there any particular reason for that number? And does it imply anything about paragraph length? You may have noticed another editor's comment that an earlier version was bloated.[[9]] Of course, the discussion about the content and sources for this article is ongoing, and it is too early for refinements of presentation, but it would be helpful to know, both for that article and generally, about the rule of four. Qexigator (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In the Manual of Style for lead paragraphs (MOS:LEAD) it recommends "no more than four paragraphs." This is not to say anything about the length of such paragraphs. The lead should summarize the most important points of the article below it. I invite your correspondence on this and any other matter. Stay cool. Greg Bard (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the rule is a "no more than...", which leaves some latitude for editorial skill and knowledge, and thanks for open invitation. Meanwhile, cool as a cucumber.[10] --Qexigator (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reasoned assistance

Thank you for your well reasoned assistance. I trimmed your edit a bit, and added the definitions suggested by all editors. I even added the idiotic NCCAM definition, a defintion that implies scientifically proven abortion pills "become" alternative medicine if politicians ban them from use by MD's, whereby they are no longer "practiced by MD's", and so are alternative medicine by the NCCAM defintion. The Cochrane defintion is even more bizarre - "intrinsic to the politically dominant health system", as if scientific truth is as relative as Stalin claimed genetics was. But that said, I believe that at least the first paragraph should now be permanently stable, since the sourcing is rock solid for the first two sentences. Thanks again. ParkSehJik (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Logical symbols

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Logical symbols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I found your comments here and here to be unhelpful. Attacking your fellow editors when they happen to disagree with you in this way does not advance the project. Deltahedron (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I have carefully considered your words, and find your criticism to be invalid. I haven't said nor done anything uncivil. Please consider the valid points I made, and the systemic reasons for them. Criticism is how we make ourselves better people. I would advise you and the members of WP:MATH to DROP THE ATTITUDE.Greg Bard (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
And I in turn have considered the points you made and your reply (it is not necessary to SHOUT). You asserted, twice, that mathematics articles on Wikipedia are unreadable, inaccessible, and confusing; that "naysayers" (people you disagree with) have zero credibility; that you can't think of a more irresponsible or foolish idea than a particular thing you disagree with. I said that your remarks are "unhelpful" (not "uncivil") and do not help us to build an encyclopaedia. You are not encouraging me to believe that I was wrong, or that you propose to engage constructively. But let me try to turn this around. What would you suggest to improve the accessibility and readability of mathematics articles? Can you point to one which you find confusing and say why, or what you would like to be done about it? Feel free to choose one of the three dozen on this list if you wish. Deltahedron (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning....

Your recent editing history at Symbol (formal) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. I realize I didn't look closely at your other edits when you added the misplaced "navigation" template, but, now that I have, I don't think they are appropriate, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy journals and Category:Contemporary philosophical literature

Hi, Category:Philosophy journals is a subcategory of Category:Contemporary philosophical literature, so journals that are categorized in the first, are automatically contained in the second and should not be entered into that one individually. I have reverted some of your additions (but probably didn't find all of them) and thought I'd drop you a note to explain. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. The relationship is a little tenuous. I haven't seen any entries for a scholarly philosophy journal from before 1900, so it works. But, in principle, there is nothing stopping some articles arising some day that will cause for the journals to be removed from contemporary. Greg Bard (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Mmm, I see your point. If there is a philosophical journal that was discontinued at some point, it would belong in "Philosophy journals", but not in "Contemporary philosophical literature". The most logical (and actually also most simple) solution then might be to leave the contemporary cat on the journal articles but remove "philosophy journals" from it. What do you think? --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, "contemporary philosophy" refers to the contemporary era, not necessarily people and institutions who are alive or active today. So it might not be necessary to do anything for some time (i.e. the next era?)Greg Bard (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
If I understand that correctly, this does mean that the contemporary cat should be removed from the journal articles, but not from the "philosophy journals" cat, correct? --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that works just fine. So long as we are keeping the Category:Philosophy journals under Category:Contemporary philosophical literature via the category tree, it is not necessary to label each individual philosophy journal article as "contemporary philosophical literature." Greg Bard (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

ani close

I've closed the ANI thread you started. (It's not an "official" action and can be reverted by yourself or any other editor if desirable.) The comments of the other editors who have responded indicate it's best just move away from ANI.

I appreciate your wanting to contribute to Wikipedia and can see that you're frustrated by your interactions with Arthur Rubin. Your request at ANI has received some harsh responses: Wikipedia is a weird place in terms of the norms of behavior; it's easy for editors who have been around awhile to forget that. The concern editors are expressing with regards to ANI thread isn't wiki-lawyering, it's just fundamentally understanding how Wikipedia works. Contents disagreements are common; it's best to work things on on article talk pages and then use content dispute mechanisms (e.g. WP:DRN, WP:RFC) if you can't come to agreement. NE Ent 12:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your words. It is the closest thing to acknowledgement I have seen from ANI.Greg Bard (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I would probably echo the comments above. I have closed the ANI thread and wish you good luck going forward. Maybe try to get advice from an uninvolved Admin first, not sure if you did that already, just saying. Ask them their advice and if reporting to the ANI board will get you or the parties anywhere. --Malerooster (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Alt. med. again

Please see my revision here [[11]]. Would you agree that the article would now be better if "propaganda, or fraud" were dropped from the second sentence? In that context, they detract from "based on tradition, belief in supernatural energies, pseudoscience, errors in reasoning", and amount to the kind of error of reasoning which results from failing to distinguish a lapse into emotive rant, thus threatening the credibility of all that follows. Please advise. Qexigator (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modal operator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modality (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) 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

quantifiers

I have put hatnotes on Universal quantification and Existential quantification directing people to the articles about the symbols.

The article about the turned A discusses its use as a Japanese title and in traffic engineering, and those have nothing to do with universal quantification, so that's another reason not to redirect universal quantifier to that article. It's perfectly appropriate in an article about a symbol to include those various unrelated meanings, but it would seem inappropriate to include those other topics in a page to which "universal quantifier" redirects. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I always invite your correspondence. My whole point is to carefully account for the distinction between the symbol, and the concept which it represents. "Universal quantification" is a concept, a "universal quantifier" is a symbol, usually an upside down A. This may seem trivial to some, however, to those who study these things with a microscope, blurring the distinction can lead to fallacy. I want to help people who are just learning this stuff, and I think precision like this helps. I don't see why the supposedly stellar math project hasn't created entries for all the symbols quite frankly. It is the most confusing thing for novices who need help. It seems they are mostly redirects (e.g. +), when they could be explaining things more clearly. What a missed opportunity. Greg Bard (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it's important to distinguish between the symbol and the concept that it represents, but I am inclined to disagree with the proposition that a universal quantifier is a symbol. I think a universal quantifier is a particular instance of universal quantification. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Theories of religions title

I started the article and wrote about 90% of it years ago. I do not agree with the title change. I explained the reasons on the talk page. Please feel free to comment there.

I cannot revert the title change myself but I will request to have it reverted.\

Please next time in such cases discuss title changes in advance on the talk page. Andries (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the issue? The article is certainly not about theories of religion. A theory of religion is from within some religion, whereas a metatheory is a theory that talks about theories. The article is clearly about metatheory. Greg Bard (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Read the article. Only Frazer agrees. Andries (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
In addition to that, even if you are formally and logically correct which I do not believe, then metatheory of religions is not the most common, usual title. Andries (talk)
To say it in another way, the belief that religion is a theory is only one of the theories in the article. Only Frazer believes that. Andries (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay that does not answer my question. I did read the article. I would love to see articles about functionalism (religion) and reductionism (religion). I can plainly see that they are using the term, "theory" rather than metatheory, however, that is within the context of the social science literature. In absolute terms, they are talking about metatheories, but are not being precise in their term, because the context doesn't demand it. In wikipedia, there are dozens of other theories to deal with, so the distinction between a theory and an metatheory of religion, becomes substantial. I really wish you would see the sense in this, and not demand inappropriate blind adherence to the terms of the source, which were only meant in the context of those sources, not here on Wikipedia. Please give me a justification of your objection, in your own words (as I have given you a justification for my actions in mine).
Okay I see you have given me a partial answer. However, within the context of Wikipedia, and just logical organization of content, they are theories. Please give me an alternitive way to organize this content within the Wikipedia organization under the Category:Concepts and Category:Theories category trees.Greg Bard (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I will try to figure out categorization. I never thought about that. Andries (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I will continue the discussion over at: Talk:Metatheories of religion in the social sciencesGreg Bard (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

'Importance'

Hi, before ranking any more journal articles "Top" class, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Assessment. Like the "class" parameter, the importance parameter is not an assessment of the subject of the article per se, but of the importance of the article subject for the prohect. Surely, none of these journals is "one of the core topics about philosophy"... As an aside: it's useless to add importance parameters to the WPJournals banner, as that project does not have such a parameter (and doesn't need it either). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

RK. Of the hundreds of philosophy journals, I assigned a top rating to the top 20. Insofar as the philosophical literature task force is concerned, they are the top priority, and therefore they are the top priority for the project. There were only about 50 top rated articles for the whole project until that point. I am selectively promoting the very most important articles so as to make a more useful and meaningful rating system. Please do not change them.Greg Bard (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You really want to say that people cannot understand philosophy if they don't know about these journals??? That's what this rating means, you know. I really think you are mixing up "importance in real life", with "importance to a wikiproject". And even in real life, I am baffled that anyone would argue that one has to be familiar with any one of these journals in order to understand what "philosophy" is... I cannot imagine how any journal could have a higher than "Low" importance rating for any wikiproject... In any case, please save yourself the trouble of adding importance parameters to WPJournals banners, because they don't have any effect. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, there is a philosophical literature task force, and insofar as that task force is concerned, yes, Those journals are such that you can't really know what philosophical literature is, without knowing about those particular journals. There are several journal articles (e.g. Two Dogmas of Empiricism) which have an article of their own and which are of high importance to the whole project. Please don't concern yourself about it. I am responsible for 90% of the ratings in WP:PHILO, and I am considering the interests of the whole project. I would say that academic journals are crucially important in general, so we just don't agree about that issue. I did figure out after the first time that WPJournals doesn't have an importance rating, so that point is acknowledged. Greg Bard (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

1926 in philosophy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Kai Nielsen and Louis Dupré
1970 in philosophy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fritz Heinemann

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you help me out?

Dear Gregbard, I decided I could help out here on wikipedia. However, as I am new I don't quite understand everything going on. I noticed there was a desire to have articles about attributive/referential use of (definite) descriptions and about the text "the meaning of 'meaning'". I am positive I have the knowledge, understanding and capability to write such articles, but probably it would be unwise to do so without becoming acquainted with the wikipedia writing process first. Could you perhaps direct me to some existing articles in the philosophy of language that could need small additions? (extra paragraphs for example) My knowledge lies mainly in philosophy of language (reference, identity, meinongianism/modal logic, fiction) and philosophy of science (popper, kuhn, toulmin). If you could help me get started with helping you, that would be very .. helpful :) Link0007 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page.

Category:Metatheory of religion

Category:Metatheory of religion, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Editor2020 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A third discussion

Sorry for the hassle. I was a little bit hot b/c of another editor who thinks he can read my mind regarding what I personally believe. I apologise if I came across as gruff in either discussion, and I'm sorry I barked at you for going to my talk page. Not appropriate by me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No, all of your words to me have been decent, civil, and reasonable as usual. Stay cool Greg Bard (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I've reverted most of your edit here. I presume this was accidental, right? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have some computer problems. I will have to be more careful.Greg Bard (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, no problem then--it was actually kind of funny to me for some reason. BTW, I would usually use WP:HOTCAT for adding categories, I find it much easier than doing it by hand. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I usually do. However my computer problem is disabling it for some reason.Greg Bard (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Interstate conflict

Category:Interstate conflict, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Threats to create new categories in opposiktion to CfD decissions

Your threat to create a new category in disregard to a potential CfD decission is unwise. If the community feels that a category is unneeded you should respect that decision, and not try to go around it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a threat. It is a good faith warning. I really feel I have no options here. I am being up front and forthright about it. Perhaps we do need to go to ANI sooner rather than later. I am asking you to relent, and that seems to be all that I have in my power. My reasoned argument does not seem to inform you and the others. Greg Bard (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category-Metaphysics/header

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Category-Metaphysics/header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Religious cosmology

Category:Religious cosmology, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Editor2020 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Youngkitten.JPG

Sorry for the drama at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Claim_regarding_Nancy_Lanza.2FDoomsday_Preppers. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

MAXIMUM CUTENESS!Greg Bard (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of apocalyptic songs

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of apocalyptic songs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article looks trivial, and indeed it is entirely original research, and many songs/groups mentioned in this list are not notable. List of apocalyptic films, which also lacks sources, was created by the same editor.

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.  Bulldog73  Bark  02:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your questions answered

See User talk:Drmies#Credibility. Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take more care when archiving

I don't understand why you would archive the whole concept talk page, including current discussions. Archiving is for older comments. Please look here- WP:ARCHIVE The preferred method for archiving a talk page is to copy the older content to a series of subpages. Bhny (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Effective method; and also a more general question

Hi Greg, I'd be happy to see an answer from you on Talk:Effective method again. Thanks!

Secondly, I wondered whether the logics task force wouldn't want to include the informatics / computer science community as one of it's constituents? The Computer Science project seems to be inactive (I asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science and got no answer so far), so trying to get them join in seems fruitless. Still, I think it'd help (both the logics project and willing contributors) to mention that (whether?) you welcome people from informatics / computer science. You think it's worth a try? Se'taan (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no qualification to membership in these projects nor taskforces other than just wanting to be a member. The logic task force is quite inactive as a taskforce, and issues that arise are usually discussed at WT:MATH or WT:PHILO as requested. There isn't really any benefit to "joining" the group. If there is an issue, just bring it up at one of those talk pages. Greg Bard (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Neuroepistemology and related articles

Hi, the articles listed in the section above could use some help from someone knowledgeable like you. Also, it certainly looks to me that at least the first one is simply copied from some place, but Google doesn't turn up anything. Perhaps you know of other places to look for these things. --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's nice that you thought of me. I did see that article up for deletion. It doesn't look to hopeful, as is. Greg Bard (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

alt med

I am noticing you because you are one of the "new" editor's reverts in the list below. (I didn't look much beyond that.) The editor of these warring edits claims he is "new" in one breath, but using sophisticated citations of niceties of MEDRS in the other. He is arguing to remove NSF as not a good source, as well as removing NYAS, Academic Medicine, etc, and claims a syllogism "wrong" reasoning as part of his basis for the edits below, while in another breath makes sophisticated inferential reasoning -

Notables need sources

A reminder to include sources for notables added to articles. This edit to the article for New Brunswick High School added an entry for Irving Freese, without a source. I was able to find a source for his place of birth and high school here in New Jersey, but I'm sure that you had a source that provided this information. Adding the source when adding the entry to an article makes it much easier for both readers and editors looking to confirm the source of information. Alansohn (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination

Hi, your hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Irving Freese is 312 characters; this is much longer than the 200 which are allowed. (See WP:DYK#The hook.) Please edit the existing hook and/or write a new one which is within the acceptable limit. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 02:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It now consists of exactly 200 characters, including the ellipsis, and the question mark. Greg Bard (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Philosophical Frontiers

Hi Greg, I see that you removed the PROD notice (not a speedy deletion one, by the way) from this article. However, all links in the stub are currently dead, so we don't even know whether the journal still exists... If you have a link to its current website, that would be helpful. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Descartes mind and body.gif

A tag has been placed on File:Descartes mind and body.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Antoniobanfi01.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Antoniobanfi01.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Maidu Headmen with Treaty Commissioners.png

A tag has been placed on File:Maidu Headmen with Treaty Commissioners.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Misspellings in Samuel Adams

For the article Samuel Adams, you changed "act" to "acs" for an unknown reason. Although the edit does not constitute vandalism, it is unnecessary. Please refrain from misspelling wordsAlexschmidt711 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Alexschmidt711,19:50 EST

I am having serious computer problems.Greg Bard (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/header

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/header, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/header and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/header during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at WP:ANRFC

Something strange was going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Your edit seemed... like vandalism, or at the very least completely disruptive and nonsensical. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 11:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am having serious computer problems.Greg Bard (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
That much seems to be abundantly clear. When I saw all the traffic on your talk page, I got curious and checked out your edit count. I thought there was no way a person with 60k edits would purposefully do that. I hope you're able to sort it all out; best of luck. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience.Greg Bard (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Jacqueline Laing

Reverted you, what happened? [12]. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am having computer problems. Greg Bard (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Not nice. I had a problem once when somehow references done with the dropdown template were being put at the top of the edit field instead of where my cursor was, so I sympathise. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Esposito (politician)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Clean-up

Hey Gregbard, I have a new article that I would like to be cleaned up a bit: Wings of History Museum. Thank you for your time.
~Doot~ (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help with the article on Giordano Bruno! -Darouet (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Irving Freese

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

List of years in philosophy

Thanks for your tremendous help with the List of years in philosophy. Anthrophilos (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I nominated you for the Star of Sophia Greg Bard (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked at a library computer

Orologio verde.svg
This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Gregbard (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
207.203.67.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "OGBranniff". The reason given for OGBranniff's block is: "Personal attacks or harassment".


Accept reason:

 Done ‑Scottywong| yak _ 20:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gregbard. You have new messages at Talk:Statement (logic).
Message added 22:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jason Quinn (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What was this?

[13]Ryan Vesey 03:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am having computer problems. It was only supposed to be the addition of Category:2013 deaths. Greg Bard (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Braine (philosopher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britan (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) 11:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi Greg, This is Dooooot. Can you help me clean up Wings of History a bit?
Here's a useful site: http://www.wingsofhistory.org/
Thanks,

~Doot~ (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Rename

Hi Greg! The sources state that it is the philosophy of chiropractic, not 'foundations'. Also, given that it talks about vitalism, holism, materialism, naturalism why do you think it's not philosophy? Regards, DVMt (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy is limited by science and reason as methodology. If you have abandoned this limitation, you are no longer doing philosophy. The use in your sources is an unfortunate, and non-careful use by non-philosophers. If you ask real academic philosophers about it they would be offended at this usage.Greg Bard (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Baron (philosopher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Value (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) 11:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

New project Template:Philosophy awards

Hi Greg, I finished the 1900s in the List of years in philosophy. This project has been largely abandonded and I hope that more philosophers will join to make these year lists more accurate and comprehensive. My latest project is related to categorizing and updating all major philosophy prizes available. See: Template:Philosophy awards. Anthrophilos (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Origen S. Seymour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal Church (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) 11:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Zullo

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your help at new page, Silver Gavel Award. — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Franklin Rhoda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mount Wilson
Samuel Simons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Thomas Burr Osborne
William W. Welch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to American Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your additions and edits to John Cavanagh (hatter) - great new information and fantastic to have some additional context for this chap. Mabalu (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:William A. Collins.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:William A. Collins.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Albert P. Morano.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Albert P. Morano.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Donald J. Irwin.xcf

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Donald J. Irwin.xcf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Tammany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwalk (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) 09:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC regarding inclusion of a subsection of Metaphilosophy in the article on Philosophy

An RfC concerning addition of a subsection to Philosophy can be found at this location. Please comment upon its inclusion and any modifications you think would help make it better. Brews ohare (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Fitch, V at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Greg Bard (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Steve9821. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Eliphalet Lockwood, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Steve9821 (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm an "auto-reviewer" so created pages show up that way. More eyes on it can't hurt. I will be adding more refs when I get a chance. Greg Bard (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Abner Sibal.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Abner Sibal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

annotations adding reference sources to categories

Hi,

I've asked some questions about Wikipedia:Categorization, and and it seems in general annotations reference sources such as you added to Category:Process philosophy and Category:Process theory should be used in the article space only and not on navigation pages.

Wikipedia:Categorization says: "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations reference sources or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles."

Is there some sort of special reason why you think those categories need annotations reference sources, including external links, that justify not following the guidelines?

We can ask at the Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard to clarify if you like. Thanks, Star767 (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

GB asked me to reply that my comment, simply stated, was that categories should not include references. I also believe that as I stated, categories are for article navigation and should not be used to provide reference sources, like this template does, in a category. That is something that belongs on a project page. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Vegaswikian, please take a look at PhilPapers Categories. My effort has been to make links between ours and theirs. I really have to question the wisdom of your opinion, and I request that you reconsider. Much of my effort in organizing categories has been toward making them consistent with PhilPapers, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Indiana Ontology Project, as provided in those links. Greg Bard (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please help to seek other opinions on this disagreement

Let's seek consensus rather than you insisting on adding reference sources to categories. Star767 (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:William R. Roesch.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:William R. Roesch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Gregbard. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You've been mentioned on WP:ANI

Gregbard, you have been mentioned here. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For this comment, specifically the statement "I wouldn't use language that denigrates woman, nor any other group, because a human being is primarily an individual, not a member of some group."  Ryan Vesey 19:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Right on. BTW, Greg, I have no answer for your query: if I were you I'd be curious enough to ask the Checkuser on their talk page what they found and what it might mean. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser results

Hello Greg. I'm not a checkuser myself, but I can provide en explanation of what they are saying. Basically, it appears based on technical evidence (your IP address and your user agent), that at some point in the past three months you used the same computer as a banned troll. If you have used shared computers at an office, school or library, that would be the simplest explanation. There are circumstances in which such data can be misleading, however. You may be in a similar geographical area to the troll, and have a very similar or identical computer setup. If you use the same internet connection (such as a shared wifi connection, or a very dynamic IP from the same ISP), these sorts of false positives are easy to create. If you want more information, you should contact one of the checkusers who performed the check in private (Deskana (talk · contribs) or DoRD (talk · contribs)). However, you are not under threat of any sanctions. Everyone seems to agree that even if you may have used the same computer, that your behavior is so radically different from the troll that you are probably not the same person. I hope that answers any questions you may still have. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have recently used libraries at the South Mainland Library and the Melbourne Library in Brevard County, so that makes sense. Greg Bard (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I echo Someguy1221's comments. I think we're all quite satisfied that you're a separate person. If you're interested, I can offer more of an explanation in private of what actually happened. If you're not interested, then I wish you happy editing! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your browser

FYI. Marcus Qwertyus (talk)

Thank you for cleaning up that damage. I am having problems.Greg Bard (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Star767 now at ANI

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Star767_-_sockpuppetry.2C_divisive_and_destructive_wholesale_editing --Penbat (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Star767 now blocked see User_talk:Star767#Blocked.--Penbat (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adger Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kenneth Allen (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) 14:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gregbard. You have new messages at Orlady's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again. --Orlady (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Strange damage to text

Hi! In this edit you somehow damaged several words and phrases throughout the page; there's a thread about this at the Village Pump. Before the techies waste too much time on it, can you think of anything that might explain it? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Thomas Fitch, V

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Thomas Fitch, V at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 14:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Greg, I have volunteer to assist with the review but encountered some inconsistency with the Richard Shuckburgh name and the variant spellings that you use in the article. If you could answer those concerns I would greatly appreciate your time! AgneCheese/Wine 04:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please desist from getting categories deleted by emptying them outside of the WP:CFD process

I see that you manually recategorized all of the contents of Category:Leaders of counties in the United States, then requested (and obtained) speedy deletion of that category as an empty category. Since you also requested speedy deletion of some categories that had been recently created by you, I suppose that the deleting administrator didn't recognize that this was a long-existing category (created in 2005) and that you had unilaterally emptied it without invoking the Categories for discussion process. This type of practice is disruptive editing -- and offensive to those of us who patiently attempt to work through Wikipedia's consensus processes when we want to effect change. You are by no means the only Wikipedia user who is convinced that your superior knowledge entitles you to make massive content and organization changes, but this place would be even more contentious and chaotic than it already is if everyone with that attitude made unilateral changes -- like you have done -- without bothering to work within Wikipedia's processes.

I don't know what I think of the new category structure you have created. Frankly, I am still too livid about the evidence of your maverick behavior to have considered the merits of your changes. This category move should have been proposed at WP:CFD, not as a speedy move, but as a full-scale discussion. That would allow users with interests in the topic and in categorization in general to weigh in on the merits of your proposal -- and it would provide the assistance of a bot to make the move once the consensus was clear.

The next time I see you make -- or attempt -- a unilateral change in category structure out of process, I will be reporting you at WP:ANI. Consider yourself warned. --Orlady (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not contact me further. I have been patient with you up until this point, and it will be I who takes your behavior to ANI.Greg Bard (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Templates

Hi-you may want to add wikiproject templates to the talk pages of the various categories you are creating. This makes it easier for the editors involved with the various wikiprojects to keep track of the categories. I do this for WikiProject Wisconsin by adding wikiproject templates to categories involving Wisconsin or Milwaukee. Thanks-RFD (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

At some point I will do it all at once using AWB, but not immediately. I'm pretty reliable about it when I create individual pages, but I am currently working on a whole category structure (i.e county government in the US). Greg Bard (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

county government vs. county government agencies

In this edit, you again placed the article for Board of chosen freeholders in Category:County government agencies in the United States, rather than Category:County government in the United States. Your edit summary states that "the board is, in fact, an agency as opposed to being a person. That is the distinction in the category structure." I don't see your distinction. The Clark County Department of Aviation and the Clermont County Airport are agencies of the county government in those counties, and belong in Category:County government in the United States, based on my colloquial understanding of the definition of a government agency and based on the description in the article government agency. However, a Board of Supervisors and Board of chosen freeholders are both county governments (not agencies) as described at Local government in the United States and County, serving in a legislative and/or executive role in the counties in which they function. Neither a government nor a government agency is an article about a person, so I don't understand the nuance that "the board is, in fact, an agency as opposed to being a person." Can you help me understand your position? Alansohn (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia categories are concerned, the fundamental distinction is between a person and two or more persons. There are categories that are solely dedicated to persons and their roles. Offices are held by single persons called officers, for instance, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County. This is different than articles about, for instance the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. These are articles about departments. They have offices, they are not themselves an office. So the Butte County Board of Supervisors doesn't belong in a category about individual human beings, but rather one about departments, or agencies. This is not inconsistent with proper use of language, especially in the law. I will be creating further agency categories so as to deal with the issue. Greg Bard (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The Category:County government in the United States describes itself as including "articles and categories pertaining to government of counties and county-equivalent entities". What does this have to do with the number of people it includes. A county government governs a county, in a legislative and / or executive capacity. A county supervisor or a board of supervisors is a county government. A sheriff's department or airport would be an agency of the county government. Where do you get this distinction from that "the fundamental distinction is between a person and two or more persons"? Can you point to any articles that support your belief? Alansohn (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding. I am not talking about numbers of people in a county. I am making the distinction between a board, committee, or department all of which consist in more than one person which act as a unit, and individual board members, committee members and office holders. I thought that was pretty clear from the sheriff example.
Wikipedia has articles that are about, for instance the Shelton Sheriff's Department. The Shelton Sheriff Department is not itself a sheriff, it is a department which contains a person, who along with others are sheriffs. The category Category:American sheriffs contains individual humans exclusively. The category Category:Sheriffs' departments of the United States‎ contains departments exclusively. Shelton Sheriff Department would not be properly categorized under the "American Sheriffs category tree.
If we look up the Wikipedia category structure we see that there is a difference between a human and a corporate or social group. I am organizing the categories keeping that distinction intact.Greg Bard (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Orlady deleted.

(ec) The problem is that the categories were never intended to distinguish between articles about a single person as being county government and any group of people as a county government agency. Using Essex County, New Jersey as an example, you've placed County executive in Category:County government in the United States, but its Board of chosen freeholders in Category:County government agencies in the United States, while Essex County Hospital Center is in Category:County government agencies in New Jersey. Both the County executive AND the Board of chosen freeholders are the county government; The Board of chosen freeholders is not an agency because it has multiple people. Category:County government in the United States describes itself as including "articles and categories pertaining to government of counties and county-equivalent entities" and both the County executive AND the Board of chosen freeholders are the government of the county. Where do you get this distinction between individuals and groups as being the difference between a county government and a county government agency? Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be multiple contradictions and confusions in your statements. So I am wondering just how much explaining I have to do at this point.
A) How do you know what categories were intended to do, and why exactly do you believe they weren't intended to distinguish between individuals and groups. There sure do seem to be high level categories distinguishing them (i.e. Category:People and Category:Committees).
B) I only have started working on these categories within the past few days, so if everything isn't perfect, I would have to ask you to come back in a week, a month or a year. It shouldn't be a problem, because there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Just chill, and let me work please. If you look very carefully, the Category:County government in the United States is already very well organized, and contains categories and articles that make compete sense without a lot of explaining.
C) County executives are invariably individual persons. I.e. county mayors, county judges, etc.
D) County boards and commissions are, in fact, agencies, and we know this because state laws require all agencies (that is the term they use, and courts have adjudicated on it) to have open meetings. It is the fact that a county board is an agency that makes it required to hold open meetings.
E) I am not making a distinction between a county government and a county government agency, the agencies are agencies of the county government, which is consistent with the category placement.
F) At this point I have done a lot of explaining, and it seems to me that you have not done sufficiently careful considering of the information in front of you. I am willing to explain things but please help me out and at least be careful. F. Once you get to F, that's a lot of explaining. Greg Bard (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Category

Hi-On creating categories for various county governments, etc. you are going too fast. Please slow down. The 50 states are unique with their own constitutions, government, etc. and one has to take that into account. Thanks-RFD (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take it under advisement. 14:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Irritable

Okay I am getting unhappy and irritable at your attitude. You are going too fast with the categories disregarding how each of the 50 states are functioning with thier constitution and government. Also I am unhappy the way you are treating another editor-Orlady by omitting her comments from your talk page and being rude. Again please slow down and take time out. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have 2 comments: 1-Please read Political subdivisions of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Constitution to understand Wisconsin government state and local government. 2-Orlady is a capable editor and administrator and Orlady is one of the editors I highly respect. Having said this I am now going to drop the matter. Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no choice but to interpret this as having no substantial criticism. As far as Orlady's claims and Wisconsin in particular are concerned...Please observe that in Wisconsin: " Counties are an arm of the state and are utilized by state government to locally provide state services." So I have to stand by my claim about her personally, and the substantive issue of whether or not counties are state agencies. She is wrong. Period. I do invite your correspondence. Perhaps you can serve as a reasonable mediator and bring any substantial concerns to me, if any ever arise.Greg Bard (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Fitch, V

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Richard Aaron

I've been working on this page lately, and I saw you were the one who'd added it to the John Locke category. If you look at the contents of that category, you'll see that it's not a list of people who wrote about or were influenced by Locke (The one other person listed doesn't belong either). Along with many other style and formatting edits, I've removed that category. Since the article doesn't have an active talk page or enough watchers to register, I'm poking the last few editors to get feedback. Revent (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No objection. However, I see a day in the perhaps far future where there is a category Category:Scholars of John Locke or Category:John Locke scholars or some such thing, and this would just be a natural development of the John Locke category. Greg Bard (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I thought it belonged in the category also until I actually audited it's content and saw what other pages were included. Revent (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed replacement page 'Deflationism' for redirect to 'Deflationary theory of truth'

It is proposed to start a page to replace the present redirect from Deflationism to Deflationary theory of truth. An RfC can be found on its talk page at Deflationism. Please make comments and provide suggestions for improvement. Brews ohare (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"You don't seem to know what an 'agency' is."

According to this edit of the article for board of chosen freeholders, I "don't seem to know what an 'agency' is." I do. I have read and re-read the article for government agency and a county government is not an agency of county government. A government agency is defined as "a department of a local or national government responsible for the oversight and administration of a specific function" and this just does not fit, regardless of your determination to make it so. In past discussions you have advanced the position that all of county government is really an agency of state government. That might well be a wonderful technicality, but the issue here is the fact that a board of chosen freeholders is the county government in New Jersey, not an agency of itself as would be a sheriff's department or a county library. Can you point to anything that supports your cliam that a county government is an agency of county government? Alansohn (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Your board of Freeholders is required to hold open meetings. So why is that? If you ask the counsel for the board, you will discover that the open meetings law for state agencies is the reason why. BTW, if you are relying on Wikipedia for your understanding of things, that would suggest that you don't really understand them. Greg Bard (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not relying on Wikipedia's definition, I'm demonstrating that Wikipedia consensus contradicts your idiosyncratic interpretation. Do you truly believe that because county government is subject to state law it's an agency of itself? Is there anyone here in Wikipedia who agrees with you? Why sin't county government listed as a state agency? Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not personally responsible for the Wikipedia consensus. However, it is my duty to inform you that a county is an agency of the state government. This is the case, in reality, regardless of what the Wikipedia consensus is. Please let me correct your mis-impression: I don't believe that a county is "an agency of itself", nor do I believe that a county is an agency of the state government "because county government is subject to state law." I know that a county governing board, such as a county commission, is an agency of the state government because it is only in its capacity as a state agency that it is required to hold open meetings. If it wasn't a state agency, that requirement just wouldn't apply. Unlike everyone else comprising the Wikipedia consensus, I am not pulling this fact from my nether regions. This is not an idiosyncratic view among anyone who actually has any education on the subject matter. Here are just a few sources which support my claim: (Alabama,California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin) Furthermore, the NACO website itself states that "...early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." Among these sources are statements such as "It is well-settled law that counties are state agencies", and "the general rule still is that a county is an arm of the state" ref. So I think what needs to happen, is for people to admit that they are relying on a high school civics, and freshman college level of understanding that they got in those required classes, and also admit that when someone who actually has studied the matter on a graduate level, that despite their strongly held impressions, that probably the person with the graduate level of study probably is, in fact, more credible on those issues. We have a guy who is working on a "PhD. in Appalachian Studies" and a person who has held government jobs as the leaders in that Wikipedia consensus, so it is pretty much a case of WP:FAIL. Greg Bard (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The legalisms are interesting but irrelevant. If you are using these sources to argue that a county government is an agency of state government, then a county legislature is a state government agency, and if so why describe a county government as a "county government agency". Even using your mischaracterizations this still makes no sense. Why are county legislatures and sheriff's departments both agencies? You may want to look in the mirror before making accusations of WP:FAIL, when you're trying to ramrod through your own bizarre stance on how to categorize county governments and their agencies. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
You presume too much. My interest in placing the boards under "county agencies" is the fact that they don't belong in the parent cat, and they don't belong under the "officials" cat. I have recently created a category just for "legislative bodies", and that should resolve the "agency of itself" issue. So your nitpicking has resulted in some progress, but you still really should drop the attitude and presumption. I'm doing the best that I can, and am receiving no help from the peanut gallery at all. However we will probably now enter into the full conflict about whether or not the "legislative bodies" cat should be under state agencies or not. I find your statement that "legalisms are irrelevant" to be a little shocking. So you don't even deny that my claim is true, just that it is irrelevant, is that the idea? Greg Bard (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
That counties operate under the authority of state government is true, but irrelevant. Your interpretation is that this means that any and all aspects of county government are agencies of state government, a position that has been thoroughly debunked both by me and most notably by Orlady. If what you call "nitpicking" has lead to a more logical category structure, than that may well be the way to go here. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, again, you are presuming. A county governing board is considered a state agency, for open meetings and liability purposes. It isn't about merely "operating under the authority of the state." However a sheriff, a parks department, etc are rightfully "county agencies." I have never claimed otherwise. You don't seem to get the nuances. Reality isn't simple. No one had "debunked" anything! If you are impressed by Orlady's convoluted interpretations, you obviously are not a very critical thinker. She's tap dancing to shoehorn her POV and you fell for it. I'm sorry, but the scholars agree with me, not her. Greg Bard (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The Category:County governing bodies in the United States is finally an accurate description of county government, as Category:County government agencies in the United States is patently incorrect for this purpose. The title that would match your description -- Category:County government bodies in the United States that are a state agency for open meetings and liability purposes -- will never exist, because it's wrong. The "for open meetings and liability purposes" qualifier is pedantically true from a legalistic standpoint, but trying to ram that through as a title for a category or describing county government bodies as "agencies" of county government in circular fashion is wrong. The scholars you refer to are not agreeing with you; You're misinterpreting statements that show that there is some vague agency status that exists for open meetings and liability purposes but that does not have any relevance here, as Orlady has thoroughly demonstrated. Consensus is the Wikipedia standard, not the truth you believe to see. Alansohn (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You are hopeless. Most of those references when taken at face value clearly and unambiguously support my claim, however most of them are not scholarly sources. The scholars do, in fact, agree with me. Your nonsense about trying to portray my view as legalese, or semantic in nature is cruelly and pathetically ironic. County government is only "local" government in a semantic sense. Campaigns and elections aren't governing, they are means of accountability. The actual government is state government. You need only to read up on the tenth amendment to realize this. Have any counties legalized marijuana or permitted more lenient gun laws than their state has permitted? How about elections? They are not federalized in the US, they are reserved to the state. So who is in charge of elections where YOU are? Oh right, the county elections officer.... who reports to the Secretary of what? Right. Secretary of State. You basically are a religious believer, in the face of overwhelming evidence. Greg Bard (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
In the unlikely event that anyone agrees with Greg, I would like to point out that "state agencies" cannot declare bankruptcy, while cities and counties can (under title 9). In fact, there is no real difference between cities and counties, except that in (most) states, every thing is in exactly one county, and in at most one city. (And a county board of supervisors or city council is not an "agency", even under your definition; it's the county and city that would be state "agencies". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

Please refrain from making inaccurate and misleading edit summaries, as in this edit, which was inaccurately identified as having reverted vandalism. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, by this posting you are disrespecting Gregbard's explicit request to you not to post further at his Talk page. I noticed some of your previous interactions and don't like what I see. A relatively new user should be encouraged and given some guidance, perhaps, not goaded and disrespected. If you come across as arbitrary and illegitimate, that breeds disrespect by this editor, probably leading the editor into trouble with other editors, too. But your disrespect is part of the problem, part of goading the editor on. Please refrain, yourself. --doncram 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Doncram, Gregbard is hardly a newbie needing your protection. He registered here on 3 April 2006 and has over 80,000 total edits. Anyway, if you are interested in defending his honor (and/or telling the world about your opinions of me), you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Orlady. --Orlady (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, where else do you think I should have communicated to him about his misleading edit summary? --Orlady (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Suicide by Admin

You're doing it right. - UnbelievableError (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

the => free?

Hi Greg,

I'm wondering if you accidentally restored some of the reverted vandalism on Talk:Philosophy with this edit or if that's some kind of intentional punnery related to freeholds or something? --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No I having problems with my computer that occasionally causes this kind of error. My apologies. Greg Bard (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive navigation

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive navigation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read

Greg, please take a deep breath and think on what I'm about to offer. You are coming into a new group of people and attempting to force your preferred version of information down everyone's throat without getting to know the people or discuss things. As you can see, that's not going so well. Wikipedia is not about trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it even about "truth" - it's about reporting what has been stated by verifiable sources. If the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and CNN all say that the grass is purple - then that is what we report in an encyclopedic fashion. It doesn't matter if the grass is really "green". When I first started here, WP:NOT was a difficult thing for me to accept - but we all have to abide by our policies and guidelines here - aka "the rules".

When you storm in and start declaring "I'm the adult here" - it comes across as the precocious 12-year old demanding "You're not the boss of me". We have no way to verify that you hold the credentials that you claim, and the project has been duped in the past with things like that. (Essjay comes to mind). There are people who do actually want to welcome you into our group, but you have to learn the ropes and play by the rules my friend. For example: You wouldn't walk into some biker bar and start demanding that everyone renounce their evil ways and have a "come to Jesus" moment - it just wouldn't work out well.

As it stand now, you're not only headed down a path which would remove you from an area that you are so passionate about, but you're getting dangerously close to being blocked for WP:NPA. Please step back, consider a different approach. It's not too late in your wiki-career to earn our trust, work towards earning the respect that I'm sure you deserve - and please try to stop being so confrontational with everyone. Orlady is an experienced editor, and a kind person. Manning has been around as long as Jimbo Wales himself. Ask for guidance and you will be gifted beyond words. Please? — Ched :  ?  05:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do reinvestigate this issue. If you read very carefully, you may realize that there are other interpretations of the facts. If I identify myself as a mature adult, that isn't everyone else's cue to say I'm not. It is, however, an opportunity to hold me to my claim. I have put myself out in a very vulnerable position with the idea that I can trust that we have other mature adults. Well it really looks like my trust was misplaced. I am in a position right now where, I have the proverbial gun pointed at me, and my hands up. So what more do people want? This situation has gone way out of control, and I think people have placed way to much faith and loyalty in Orlady. I've been around for a very long time, longer even than many administrators. I think I have earned the respect at this point, and if I say that people should be ashamed of themselves, I have done what I needed to do in life, and in this community for my words to mean something. We are on the internet, using only typed words. It is very easy to be ruthless, cold and even mean. So have I done any of these things? No. I have merely stated my case firmly. If there is anything that bullies hate, it is a person who stands up for themselves. I was a member of my university's academic senate, and in that capacity, I was the primary author of a policy on civil debate. This was long before Wikipedia ever existed. I think people need to re-evaluate the whole story, and realize that I was very patient for a long time, I chose not to escalate the conflict, and I didn't violate any policies. So where did the idea come from to fight with the gloves off with a topic ban? I think I will be approaching the Wikimedia board of directors to tell them they need to take some responsibility if someone gets shivved in the prison yard that they have sustained. Incidently, not that anyone cares, but it is very hurtful to me personally to be treated this way. I am completely innocent, and I don't deserve this drubbing. Greg Bard (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Greg, you're getting a tough lesson on the word "community". First, it is community that determined the policies and processes of this site: WP:CONSENSUS being the main one. However, it is the community who also responds to issues, and the community that has the right and authority to impose limitations on its members. Remember: you voluntarily signed up to this private website, and agreed to those policies. Your actions have gone against community norms: consensus decisions are NOT OPTIONAL. Unfortunately, you have acted like the proverbial "bull in a china shop". It is clear, based on the interactions (all of which are permanent record), that you have lashed out against those who dared to tell you that you were acting against policy. So, now you're guilty of violating two of the key rules you agreed to: consensus AND WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA. In ANI, you've now made a comment that you'll ignore what the community decides: you cannot do that, as the community is the supreme body of governance. This is not a place where you have rights. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You are doing a lot of presuming about the facts. You have made a lot of claims against me and about this situation which are not true. Where exactly have I stated that I will "ignore what the community decides?" At what point do we determine that there is a consensus that I have gone against? That implies that the discussion is over. That hasn't been determined, annd if it is being shut down, that isn't civil. What uncivil act am I accused of exactly?! I've taken to the talk pages with the issues, so what the hell are you talking about?! I really don't think you have thoroughly investigated this issue at all. You don't seem to understand how to use quotes either. I have never used the terms "dare" "right" or "authority." My claim at this point is that the administrators are overstepping the reasonable use of their powers, and we that we have a new issue here. I haven't been given due process at all, and sanctions are being threatened against me, with no clear instance of a policy violation. Please consider that you may not be perfect. I have been around a long time, and find repeatedly condescending posts to my talk page, to support my claim that the admins have lost their way. I am trying to talk you people down, and you are offended at the attempt! That isn't civil, or fair-minded of you. I need to look at my options for defending myself at this point. Greg Bard (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Just in case you missed it, you stated that you will "ignore what the community decides" when you stated (and I quote): "Comment I will not accept any sanction of any kind". If ANI decides you're going to be sanctioned, there's little you can do about it. Claiming you're being ganged up on, or that admins are abusing anything is not at all borne out by the facts - so many people are trying to help you by showing you that, and MOST of these people are trying to prevent you from being blocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
That just means that if I am banned, I will appeal it. I see that AGF has been fully superseded by "not a suicide pact" at the drop of a hat. The discussion was a full three days old when the sanction was threatened. So who needs to take a breath?! Greg Bard (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • my apologies for assuming that you were a newish user. I have no further comment at this time. — Ched :  ?  20:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
... and I'm sorry that I thought Gregbard would actually appreciate one or two people actually trying to help him in a fair manner. Who knew? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
<redacted> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Bwilkins, please stop harassing Gregbard. You are not helpful. Let some other admin handle this. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

yep

There's no due process see (WP:NOJUSTICE) and being correct (if you are, I don't know one way or the other) doesn't count for much around here. Wikipedia itself is a political process and you're looking either getting blocked or topic ban if you continue on the current trajectory. Best advice right now is to take a break and, when you return, start working the content dispute resolution forums (e.g. WP:DRN, WP:RFC.) And don't make comments about other editors, no matter whether they're justified or not; what's valued on Wikipedia is the ability to create content while working with others (I know it can be frustrating). Stay off ANI -- it really is a shark tank. NE Ent 02:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Very fair-minded analysis. I don't think it is right that just my defending myself is hurting my case. That isn't a sign of a fair-minded community. I have taken a complete break from any editing on anything other than this issue. Any help appreciated. If I am sanctioned, I will spend the entire duration on the political and judicial issues. If there is anything specific that you think we should be thinking about, talking about, or doing something about in that area, please let me know. In particular I find "wikipedia is not a democracy" "wp:canvassing" and most recently "boomerang" to be policies that should be offensive to any reasonable and decent person. The whole consensus decision making system, and the fact that the board of directors stays hands off to this community to be very irresponsible. I think we should adopt the basic parliamentary procedures, majoritarian governance, and judicial review by duly appointed and fair-minded people with some special qualification to that role (rather than a prison yard situation where its just anyone who shows up among people who have just been around a while.) Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You should remove the ANI post you just made ... will post again soon with more. NE Ent 01:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I don't have wikitime to go into sufficient detail but, briefly, Wikipedia is an iconoclastic society which has evolved into something between a fair minded judicial / dispute resolution system and junior high school. If I could fix it, I would. I can't, not can any other individual. It's kind of like having a boat on a body of water with rocks in it -- can't move the rocks, but I can try to warn others where the rocks are. The probability the approach you're talking will "work" in the sense that either English Wikipedia, or the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) will change is pretty much nil. The most likely outcome is a series of escalating sanctions. If you feel that standing up for what you believe is right is what you need to do, I reckon that's what you gotta do but I don't think it's in your best interest nor the Encyclopedia in the long run. What is needed is a critical mass of editors willing to work to make small, incremental steps to an improved Wikipedia. NE Ent 01:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Greg has used an important word and I fully concur: irresponsibility. He has also attacked a flagrantly stupid and abusively used essay: BOOMERANG. How corrupt is this place if calling attention to the King has no clothes, is sanctionable?! The essay WP:NOJUSTICE isn't consistent with the collegiate atmosphere the WP documentation espouses, since collegiate isn't consistent with blatant hypocrisy and dumbing-down abusiveness in general. "Nojustice" can excuse any misdeed, no matter how repugnant. Something's wrong with that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point. The commonly misunderstood aspect of ANI is that if you come and report someone there, your own actions/behaviours will also be investigated. It becomes a weigh scale: if the reporters behaviours were "worse" than the person that they are reporting, OR if the reporter had one reaaally bad behaviour recently, then WP:BOOMERANG becomes invoked. In a way, it ends up being "don't point your finger at someone else unless your own hands are clean" or "when you point at someone, 3 fingers point back at you" situation. The huge problem with that becomes similar to situations we have read in newspapers (and I have had to report on) where a real victim's past comes back to haunt them in police investigations in a way that they become re-victimized. So what's the solution: we do have to review the "reporters" behaviour - we have no choice. However, we do have to recall that the reporter is a human being who feels wronged. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and I have read the essay carefully. The deal is, it is misused and abused, and at ANI, it has morphed to a sickening kind of "sport". (The editor announcing "I think we have a BOOMERANG!" or "Watch out for the BOOMERANG!" ... wins. And aren't they oh so smart & clever. ["Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the cleverest editor of all who spotted the BOOMERANG first? Me! Me! Oh clever me!"] It is out of control and misapplied, and ends up hurting and discouraging editors with fair gripes.) This is not the forum to discuss the matter, but for the record I detest BOOMERANG, for how it is misused, abusive, and the fact it is devastatingly damaging and so-so easy to pull out should be a clue that life and human situations aren't so easy as that, and the current culture of immediately suggesting "BOOMERANG" outlines the dumbing-down I'm referring. (Did you ever hear of the "God particle"? They are searching for it, right? And it holds the secret to the existence of the universe and life itself, right? Wrong. The "God" particle was so named because the original science researcher had written that the particle was "so God-damned hard to find". I propose to you that the same thing has happened with "BOOMERANG" -- misunderstood, misapplied, and off the rails used as an abusive, dumbed-down self-gratifying "sport".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. Another attraction that I believe accounts for the widespread misuse of "BOOMERANG" is that it sounds so cool (doesn't it?). "BOO-MER-ANG". (Wow. It rolls off the lips and tongue. It's neat to say. It has rhythm. The syllables flow. It's "sexy" to say. Well ... so are the words "EX-E-CUTE", and "DIS-EM-BOW-EL".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It is certainly true that far too much glee is taken in invoking the notion in question (I'm as guilty as many in this regard, and for that I apologise). But it is nonetheless a common phenomenon, especially for editors less familiar with the court drama that forms most of ANI, and as such we need some way of referring to it. It's also worth noting that one upon a time we had a different name for the same thing and and ended up having to forcibly get people to start using BOOMERANG instead; the original term was rather more personally offensive, not to mention violent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
"Too much glee" implies it might be okay to have some glee. (Not good.) You immediately followed up a generalized apology (I don't know who directed to, but whatever) with the word "But". (Bells go off in my head whenever someone does that. Because I've read from psychologists that word "but" is frequently used unconsciously to contradict whatever came immediately before it. "Sorry about running over your dog, but why was it in my driveway in the first place?") I don't agree at all. You do not need what is a cliche, to hang someone at ANI. It is too easy, and too wrong. The problem is your use of the word "it". ("It is a common phenomenon.") All situations are different. As soon as you define something as "a pheonomenon", unless they are scientists or professionals and not people volunteers off the street, you will find that it will (and obviously has and does) cause people to scurry at an ANI case (of which they aren't directly involved, so their "objectivity" is superior, right? phooey!) looking for facts to fit the phenomenon. And when they find something that looks close enough they are done with their analysis and out comes "We have a BOOMERANG here!" Bull. You don't need the cliche to evaluate someone's complaint; I suggest it can only hurt fairness, by predisposing those in love with the sexy BOOMERANG, to see ghosts and to go looking for what fits their expectations, like a crime-trained dog sniffing the ground in pursuit of a known scent. The "it" in your sentence can vary importantly if subtely in each ANI case, but if a person is fitting the facts to fit their preconceived notion of "phenomenon", to be the clever fellow first to announce "BOOMERANG!", the nuance and differences will be missed and some poor complainant will, once again, be run over by the mob mentality at ANI. In your sentence the problem is the word "it". (You use it to define one phenomenon. Are you sure? There may be many many variations, all different, and one shoe/mold/essay doesn't necessarily fit or is appropriate or even helpful, and absolutely isn't necessary. There's no gain, only potential for harm, and already much harm has been done. The fact you use "it" to mean one thing which can have important differences and variations which get stampeded by the mob mentality encouraged by the bludgeon of the over-simplified and sexy-magnetic essay label "BOOMERANG", is exactly the dumbing-down I've been referring to. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
"We need some way of referring to [...]". Why? (Why?) Will it impede your analysis of a case, if you don't have a cliche? Will it impede your ability to communicate a fair finding, if you can't use a cliche? Will the missing cliche somehow obstruct your ability to research a complaint to see what's there or not? And somehow gag you from communicating what you found or conclude to have occurred that is right/not right, fair/not fair, policy/not policy? Does putting everything in one box give an investigator more comfort? Or help them do less work? (Seemingly!) Or help them pay attention to the facts better? Or help them communicate about the critical particulars of the case? Or is it just self-satisfying to stuff it all in one box, easier, and you can cut a corner and maybe get in a nap before the 5:00pm news? *Why* is a meme or cliche needed or required or essential? (It's a fallacy to think a label is somehow needed, or required, or is a great aid. Just learn to communicate what you see or what you think. Use language. Use your thinking. I blame the most powerful motivator in humankind for this ... *laziness*. It accounts for much.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Here's the deal Greg. Enough of this. Either abide by WP:CONSENSUS, stop with the personal attacks, and learn to stop editing in a disruptive fashion. If you continue the way you have for the last few days (weeks? ... months?) .. then I will block you. I'm willing to work with anyone here .. and I'll help where I can .. but this type of disruption simply HAS to come to an end. I don't /enjoy/ blocking anyone - but I WILL do my duty and stop disruptive behavior. You're an adult - fine, so am I. You are educated in a particular field? Great. So one adult to another - knock it off. Are we clear? — Ched :  ?  20:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything other than discussion about you clueless people wanting to sanction me for the past three days. So what exactly is it that I am supposed to "knock off?!" ANI/I is my venue to defend myself. If you are offended by just the fact that I am defending myself, then you shouldn't have administrative powers. Shame on you. I haven't violated any policy, and I don't intend to. But if I need to call the Wikimedia office every day from 9 to 5 for the next three months, then I will. Drop the attitude. I don't have to pretend for one moment that it is warranted. The way to make me "knock it off" is to drop the idea of sanctions, and leave me in peace. Thanks for giving me the only "warning" I have received yet so far. It was very fair-minded of you to do that before implementing any sanction. What a novel idea. Greg Bard (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Look Greg, I would like to help - I really would, but actually you HAVE been violating policy. The WP:NPA one. Wikipedia:Consensus is actually a policy too, and it appears that you've been beating on that one with a sledge hammer as well. Let the ANI thread die a natural death. Concentrate on the articles you want to work on, but try to find a common ground on the talk pages when there's an issue. You calling other editors "clueless people" and "immature" or whatever wording suits your mood simply is NOT going to get you what you want. Digging in your heels and demanding "I am right" simply is NOT going to get you what you want. You can call whoever you want to call ... all day long ... I honestly don't care how you use your phone - but comments like that are going to have some folks screaming WP:NLT. You're digging a hole deeper and deeper here, please stop that. Take a break. Come back with the approach that "I'm going to work with these people". OK - I'll stop there. I won't come back and preach at you. I won't come back and try to lecture you. In fact I won't come back to your talk at all unless I feel I have to leave a block notice. I'm not turning my back on you in a sense that I won't talk to you ... you are more than welcome to stop by my talk. I'll even talk politics with you ... (but only off-wiki since it's such a hotbed on wiki. I don't really engage in political or religious discussions "on" wiki because I feel that everyone is entitled to their own opinion). Anyway ... it's up to you Greg. You do whatever it is you feel you need to do. — Ched :  ?  01:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I have certainly not made any legal threats at all. I am pretty sure that harassment is a wikipedia policy and that offenders will be summarily banned for three months without warning. It is interesting that you should bring the issue of legal action up because that would imply that there exists an interpretation of the facts that some person other than myself would consider a valid case. A guilty conscience needs no accuser. All I have been asking all along is for the harassment and bullying to stop, and at this point, that would suffice for me.The easiest way to do that is take the proposal for sanctions off the table as I have asked repeatedly, and we can all live in peace. Greg Bard (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Greg, it is not harassment for people to tell you you're not following the policies you agreed to. If you're violating policy again and again, it is not harassment to follow your edits and revert the ones against policy. It is also not harassment for kindly editor to drop and try to get you to stop flushing yourself down the bowl - you have stuff to add to this project, but you agreed to a set of rules when you became a member, and you cannot change those rules by self-appointed fiat (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
No, but it is harassment if I am being threatened with more dire consequences if I defend myself. That is exactly how bullies operate. The thing they hate the most is a person who stands up to their bullying. I haven't done any editing, so all of the escalation has been over "my approach" to defending myself. That's not a fair or judicious process! My claim is that the things of which I am accused are extremely mild, and the proposed sanction is insanely harsh. I have stated repeatedly my intention to comply with policy, so all of this attacking me is just gratuitous. At no point is anyone considering that it is the shark tank that has gone off the rails. There is a huge amount of presumption. People are operating on very little of the whole story. People are creating their own reality (ala Eastwood) Where does the idea come from that I am "changing the rules" for instance? Not only do I have to stand by my original claim that I am the mature adult in the room, but it is very clear that we have some very immature administrators. More so than I ever imagined. I may have implicitly "agreed" to certain terms by entering not the community voluntarily, however there are rights which can't be taken away in these types of agreements. I don't have to stand for harassment. It doesn't seem anyone is considering for one moment my interpretation of things. That's not respectful. I'm over here talking about decency and fairness, and having it shoved down my throat! We have policies like "boomerang" and "suicide by admin" which people are throwing around as if that reflects some good value to uphold! What the hell is wrong with these people?!? If we had a policy called "no good deed goes unpunished" you would think someone is a sociopath if they went ahead and actively punished people for good deeds. This culture is just far gone. Don't encourage them, and don't tell me how to behave until you reflect on what I have said. Greg Bard (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think everybody is missing the point GB said he has always and will always follow the rules. Let’s AGF and take him at his word. This means that he honestly thinks he has not violated WP:consensus. To me that means he is working with a very different definition of consensus than the rest of us and if GB and the community can come to an understanding on that everybody could start moving forward. One sticking point that I think I see is that GB does not consider consensus determined as long as he is still arguing his case which is not how WP works, we do not let one person hold up consensus as long as there has been a reasonable amount of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop me if you've heard this one before...

What do you call someone who does the same thing over and over again but expects different results each time? Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Snark isn't really helpful here and now. NE Ent 02:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not snark, it's an attempt to wake Greg up. You have your approach and technique, and I have mine. Good day, sir. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Calling someone or suggesting that someone is "insane" is no way to resolve an issue, Viriditas ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't call him insane. Have you considered that this is the way Greg prefers to do things? He should also be aware how his choices appear to others besides himself. Self-reflection is important. Viriditas (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
"Wake up" and the Bill Clinton campaign thing about definition of insanity, are examples of total dumbing down and shallowness gone rampant on English Wikipedia. Add to that your cherished dumbed-down BOOMERANG, and you are creating a padded-cell nuthouse of abuse. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about, but Greg isn't being abused by anyone. If anything, he is abusing Wikipedia and wasting a great deal of our time. Viriditas (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well deserved Barnstar

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for standing up for what is right, even against overwhelming opposition and ignorance. And by standing up for what is right, fighting to maintain the credibility and integrity of Wikipedia as a legitimate reference resource, instead of just a public opinion guide Redddbaron (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Greg, I don't know how heavily invested you are in the pages at the centre of the dispute on AN/I, but I think you'd be well-advised to take them off your watchlist for a few weeks, only because they're upsetting you a lot. They're not worth it, so please put your own happiness first. The pages will still be there in a month's time, and perhaps then you can look at them again without caring so much. It's never a good idea to care about something a lot on Wikipedia.

Feel free to archive this once you've read it, if you want to. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think people are creating a wild caricature in their minds about this situation. I don't get passionate about facts. What I am passionate about is that I lost respect for the process and the community. I haven't edited a single article since the attack on me began. This idea that somehow I have been uncivil because I told Orlady her comments "weren't helpful" is insane. The idea that I refuse to accept a "consensus" that is barely a couple of days old is insane. I went to them, and they behaved like brainless authoritarian hall monitors. I won't accept any sanction including any "monitoring." I'm perfectly capable of keeping my talents to myself until the climate becomes less hostile to me, if that is three months, then they have spectacularly forsaken their commitment to preventing problems that interfere with contributions. Please help me out and talk them down. Greg Bard (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
In case it's helpful, a quick search on Google Books turned up Tanis J. Salant, "Overview of County Governments," in Roger L. Kemp (ed.), How American Governments Work: A Handbook of City, County, Regional, State, and Federal Operations, McFarland & Company, 2002, pp. 117–122. Salant talks about the view of county governments as arms of the state government, and discusses other views and the tension between the positions. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
That is an excellent source, which also supports my claim. It is just too bad that I won't be able to use it at all due to the punitive actions, and hostile climate against me. I really don't see that the county government issue is the issue at all anymore. Greg Bard (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't see that there is consensus for action against you. Seven support the first topic ban proposal and four oppose, so that's not going through. I think seven support the second (some comments are unclear), four oppose, and I think Redddbaron opposes too, so that's five. Your best bet is to stay away from the topic and AN/I discussion until the latter closes, or else post on AN/I – just a short post – that you've decided not to edit in that topic area for a while anyway. The important thing is to give everyone (yourself included) a chance to cool down. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd advise against posting anything ... a statement "that you've decided not to edit in that topic area for a while" has the potential downside that editors will try to pin you down to a specific time frame, which ends up being a back door topic ban. As important as the count SV elucidates is the trend ... after the initial set of supports for restrictions most recent comments have been oppose. NE Ent 23:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Curious about your reasoning wrt to counties

Hi Greg. I actually have a Bachelor's degree in philosophy (dual-major) so we've got that in common. I'd like to have a better understanding of where you're coming from. I said this at ANI:

This is not an area I'm very familiar with. However, my understanding is that there is a difference between being a state agency and being under the authority of the state. Per Dillon's Rule, local government is under the authority of the state and doesn't have the same federalism protection which states have from the federal government, but that doesn't mean local government is a state agency (and some jurisdictions may not follow Dillon's Rule, but rather Cooley's Rule). Whether or not a county is a "local government" is a semantic question which probably hasn't been worth answering in most cases, but generally my impression is that country government is thought of as local government. In any case, generalizing about the law of United States is quite difficult and should be done very carefully. Orlady has shown in User:Orlady/County_by_state that the sources Gregbard is bringing really aren't up for it. In the case of Colorado, it does appear that If Gregbard used law review articles or perhaps textbooks, maybe you could start to describe the situation: a start might be looking at sources which cite Regionalizing Emergency Management: Counties as State and Local Government or perhaps getting access to Conducting Research on Counties in the 21st Century: A New Agenda and Database Considerations or County Governments: “Forgotten” Subjects in Local Government Courses?. As a further comment, think about the word 'agency' and consider the law of agency. State agencies are literally agents of the state, whose principal is the state's governor (and ultimately, the state's population) and a legislature which represents the state as a whole. On the other hand, counties typically have their own elections on a regional basis.

Do you have a response which explains how you come to think that counties are state agencies? You're an experienced user. Why do you cite things like this resume template as support for your view? Why are you not working from Google Scholar or Google Books for support? II | (t - c) 06:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for substantive and productive inquiry. I suppose it all started in my graduate level state government class at California State University, Chico with Professor Price. I suppose some highly skeptical person (which is just fine and wonderful) could claim that Dr. P was just spouting some fringe theory, or some California specific subject matter. However in the light of all of the rest of these sources, it just doesn't pass occhams razor. I am having serious computer problems, and I am very limited to what I can do at all on a computer, and for certain sites like google, I have to reload about ten times and maybe get a result. Bing is slightly better. It's a hardware problem, as I had the thing checked out, and no virus. My computer is very old. I was recently looking into wikimedia grants, however this stupid incident has really dashed my hopes. I am very indignant about it.

There are at least ten very good reasons to believe that county government is an "arm of the state government" or more specifically a "county is an agency of the state government" and corollarily that a county governing board is a "state agency:"

1) The most obvious and fundamental is the Tenth Amendment. Counties sure do not arise as a result of local revolutions where the people force the county government to serve them. Even charter counties only become such through a process determined by the state.

2) County boards are required to hold open meetings with the exception of issues of hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, and pending litigation. Sure there are all kinds of other bodies like home owners associations which are required to hold public meetings, but in those cases the law specifically spells them out. If you ask your local county board why they are required to hold open meetings, you will discover that there is no list that includes county commissions. The state law merely states that the governing boards of state agencies are required to hold open meetings, and this is interpreted as including county boards. I am sure that at some point this has been challenged (by some offending board defending itself in a lawsuit, no doubt) and settled in a court of law.

3) I am not fully versed in the general case (i.e. other than for open meetings), but the rules concerning liabilities incurred by the county are consistent with it being a state agency. However there may be some specialized exceptions.

4) We need only look at the functions that the county is performing, and look to the law to see whether or not these are state functions or not. Elections in the United States are not federalized, they are entirely a matter of state sovereignty. So who does elections? The county. The county registrar of voters even reports directly to the state secretary of state. They sure do not report to the county board who then reports to the state. You will be able to make similar examples for the sheriffs, the district attorneys, and the courts.

5 Dillon's rule is a court decision that specifically states that local governments only have powers specifically delegated to them by the state. This decision was the impetus for the "home rule" movement and the establishment of charter cities and counties. I have no idea why Orlady and her friend Coal town believe this supports their claim.

6) We sure do not see any counties legalizing marijuana, or successfully permitting laxer gun laws than are permitted by the state. The "home rule" movement is basically a joke which is put forward by the tinfoil hat crowd and conspiracy theorists. I wonder what would happen if a county even required their flag to flown at a higher level than the state flag. I don't think they have even that much "home rule." If ever the issue came to a head, they would find out very quickly.

7) Vacancies on a county board are usually filled by the governor of the state. This is certainly consistent with other state agencies. When we think of the idea of "self-governing" the idea of having for instance, the monarch of Great Britain appointing a vacant senate seat would be completely unacceptable. So therefore this must be considered "self governing" because the it is the citizens of the state whose "self" government we are concerned with preserving.

8) The idea was put forward that since the elections and politicians are local (i.e. not statewide), that therefore it must be "local government" not "state government." There are several problems with this. Obviously state senators and representatives are not elected statewide, but we would not call that "local government." However the more fundamental problem is that elections and campaigning aren't "governing." It is even said that "It takes one type of person to campaign, and another to govern." Governing involves using power. Elections and campaigning involve using rights. Rights and powers are not the same thing. Rights inhere in individuals and powers are delegated to groups of individuals.

9) We sure haven't seen Orlady or her supporters come up with any references for the claim that "counties are not state government." We have seen the term "local government" used to describe counties, but invariably, those are not by political scientists, and we can easily chalk that up to not careful language. (This seems to be the thrust of all of Orlady's counterpoints to my sources. I consider this to be the most weakly supportive of my case, but I sure do not rely entirely in this tactic as the other side does).

10) We have the dozen or so sources I cited which all include a specific claim that "a county is an arm of the state" or "a county is a state agency." Two of those sources have very unambiguous statements "It is a well settled matter that counties are an arm of the state" and "As a general rule, the county is considered to be an arm of the state."

So that's 10. When you have ten, it's pretty much time to stick a fork in it.Greg Bard (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in your response. Perhaps if you re-read my initial statement you will understand. Note that in a dialogue (or an argument), people engage others' statements. I made specific arguments which you did not engage. When I used to debate competitively, that qualified for basically an automatic loss. Also, I seriously doubt your issue with Google is a hardware problem. It sounds like a software problem. What operating system are you running, and are you running it on your own personal network or through some sort of campus? II | (t - c) 08:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
If you are wanting to explore the issue of whether or not the term "agency" is appropriate, I am certainly perfectly willing to enter into that discussion. However it is supremely frustrating to put forward ten statements supporting the more substantial issue at hand only to find that I am in some highly pedantic environment, whereas I thought I would let the discussion evolve naturally. (You know, one where I am not trying to win or avoid losing -- I don't appreciate that being sprung on me. I have enough unnecessary contention as it is).
The reason we can think of a county board as an agency is because when someone is angry "at the county" because of some policy, invariably they are angry at some action of the county board (or some other department whose "agency" is not a matter of debate, such as the assessor's office), otherwise it isn't "the county" about which they are angry. An agency has agents, i.e. there is some person whose will is being expressed. Greg Bard (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has its own unique context, it's not a dialogue or debate. The consensus model is essentially political so it's necessary to provide discussion content that convinces sufficient editors in a given context. It's neither a straight democracy nor is it a logic or rule based system -- the model I've developed for my own use is that of a weighted vote system -- how much credence a given position is given depends on multiple factors, including the strength of arguments included, use of valid references / diffs / policy links, the phrasing used, and the wiki-reputation / contributions /log history of the contributor (not an exhaustive list). NE Ent 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This is just an informal talkpage discussion. I'm not trying to do something in the Wikipedia system. II | (t - c) 18:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes the process is apparently a very political one. I would support reform. Greg Bard (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Although I generally disagree with you, I see you have some points here, but they don't seem to be the ones you're promulgating:
  1. Counties and cities are "state agencies", in a sense. Let's call such geographic areas "localities", for the purpose of argument. (This may futher include "neighborhood organizations" in the city of Los Angeles.) However, I don't know of any "state agencies" other than cities and counties which are permitted to declare bankruptcy under Chapter 9.
  2. The government board and the government of such localities are two different concepts, which are not "state agencies". (State open government laws apply to governing boards of agencies, not to the agencies themselves. Also, city planning commissions, even if the membership is the same as the city council, are not necessarily subject to state open government laws, but only to city open government laws.)
  3. I would support placing "county" (and city) government categories in "local government" categories, and "municipal corporations" (one of the legal terms corresponding to "localities" above) in "state agency" categories, but county governing boards should not be in "state agency" categories, but in related "state agency governing board" categories, if any.
You have asserted elsewhere that "cities" and "counties" are different for this purpose; there, I strongly disagree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Excellent analysis. The cities and counties are both municipalities, but a city is not an "agency" or "arm" of the state government in the same way that counties are. They don't serve the same function, in their capacities as an "agency" or "arm" of the state. However, none of that matters to wikipedia content if they ban me for such a ridiculously mild situation. Greg Bard (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe counties are agencies of the state for some purposes, cities (and counties in regard unincorporated communities areas) for other purposes, and I have doubts about "municipal" water districts in some cases. As for the point, if you agree to abide by consensus, no matter how stupid, and actually do so, then there would be no reason for a topic ban. I've agreed to abide by consensus for some of your edits in logic articles (where I am an expert), even though I consider it obviously wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
We agree. You could help out a lot by letting your views be known at ANI/I Greg Bard (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Best I can do as to your behavior. As for the question of whether a county is a state agency, let me know where the relevant discussion is, as it shouldn't be an ANI. Your categorization is still "wrong" (i.e., against a previous consensus, without an attempt to reach a new consensus.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem there is an discussion any longer. They merged County government in the United States after one day's worth of discussion and only one person registering an opinion on the issue. The so-called "consensus" I am supposedly violating was less than three days old, and I was actively seeking other views in a neutral venue when -slam- the discussion was closed and the last person to revert was threatened with a ban for three months. There were several contentious exchanges with Orlady over Category:County government in the United States and its subcategories. The proposal to merge all the various County executives into one comprehensive article was opposed, as was the similar proposal for county commission. Also, the attempt to bring all of the county commissioners by state categories into consistency has stalled. Greg Bard (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Implication DAB page

Hello, Gregbard. You recently added three definitions to the page Implication, which is a DAB page. DAB pages are navigation aids, though, not content. It seems from the content that you added that here is room for a broad concept page on the notion of implication in logic. Cnilep (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I do think that these distinctions are very helpful for people who find themselves at Implication. Perhaps they should be redlinks, and it should remain a disambiguation page, or perhaps it should be a broad concept page. I have no preference. Perhaps the whole thing should be a section in the logical consequence article. Greg Bard (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi Gregbard! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William T. Minor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Perry (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) 14:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

William M. Tweed

Hi. We've been communicating thru edit summaries, but I thought I'd drop a note here. My memory is that the NY County Board of Supervisors was an administrative body created by the Governor to take control of the city, and it was not a legislator - that would be the Board of Alderman. Tweed was appointed to the County Board, and not elected. I'll have sources for this later today when I have access to my library. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That was only after there was action to stop the corruption. Up until Tweed was stopped, there was no need to appoint what was called a Board of Audit (which is what I think you were thinking of). The thing Tweed was on up until that point was a county legislative body. Greg Bard (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
You could be right, let's see when I get to my sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure. While Tweed was appointed, there were other members who were elected. Greg Bard (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I read a couple of things on Google Books, including An Historical Sketch of the board, and it appears that you are correct, so I've reverted back to your version. Sorry for my mis-memory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
It's all good. Thanks for your collaboration. Greg Bard (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A. Homer Byington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Bull Run (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) 13:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hunting for embedded outlines

While you are reading or browsing Wikipedia articles, please...

...keep a lookout for outlines embedded in articles.

I've run across a number of these over the years. One example is the Outline of fencing, which used to be part of the fencing article.

If you know about or spot any structured general topics lists in articles, please let me know (on my talk page).

Another thing you might find are articles that are comprised mostly of lists (without "Outline of" or "List of" being in the article's title). If you come across any of these, please report them to me on my talk page. I'd sure like to take a look at them.

Happy hunting.

I look forward to "hearing" from you (on my talk page). Sincerely, The Transhumanist 07:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Always good to hear from you.Greg Bard (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Philosophy reference resources

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Philosophy reference resources has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)