Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< February 10 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 12 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
This feature seems to have stopped working on 2/5/15. What's the problem? Pkeets ( talk) 06:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Greeting,
Why Telfaz11 page is still marked for deletion ? can you tell me exactly what is missing?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postdepartum ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, please tell me, how much time additional information to a certain article must be in talk page before it can be added to a certain article?-- Yury2015 ( talk) 10:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I added that section to the article "Thought"
"We do not produce thoughts" approach
According to a number of famous philosophers - thoughts aren't produced, aren't formed by the person. Thoughts are timelessly true and are only apprehended by the person. In his work “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry” famous German mathematician, logician and philosopher Gottlob Frege writes that we don't produce thoughts, we apprehend (formulate) them. The apprehension of a thought presupposes someone who apprehends it, who thinks. A person is the bearer of the thinking but not of the thought.
"Thus the thought, for example, which we expressed in the Pythagorean theorem is timelessly true, true independently of whether anyone takes it to be true. It needs no bearer. It is not true for the first time when it is discovered, but is like a planet which, already before anyone has seen it, has been in interaction with other planets. The Thought: A Logical Inquiry, Gottlob Frege. Mind, New Series, Vol.65, No.259 (Jul., 1956), p.302"
That's the result
(cur | prev) 09:23, 11 February 2015 U3964057 (talk | contribs) . . (23,915 bytes) (-1,007) . . (Undid good faith revision 646621159 by Yury2015 (talk). Please do not simply reapply your edits if reverted. As per wiki-best practice, take it to the talk page.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 08:43, 11 February 2015 Yury2015 (talk | contribs) . . (24,922 bytes) (+1,007) . . (See Wikipedia:Five pillars In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:32, 11 February 2015 U3964057 (talk | contribs) . . (23,915 bytes) (-201) . . (Actually this should be removed altogether. It is apparently self-published original research, and added in the face of conflict of interest issues.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 23:45, 10 February 2015 U3964057 (talk | contribs) . . (24,116 bytes) (-1,007) . . (Undid good faith revision 646546256 by Yury2015 (talk). Uncited claims, clarity issues, and likely undue weight.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 20:26, 10 February 2015 Yury2015 (talk | contribs) . . (25,123 bytes) (+1,007) . . (Adding information) (undo) -- Yury2015 ( talk) 12:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you) Dear colleague, tell me please where can I read that kind of rule?
Thank you dear colleagues for your comments. -- Yury2015 ( talk) 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly! What dates are questionable? 10, 20, 30 - 100 years? May be than I should make the section "From the history of study of thought"? Aristotle did study thought and thinking.
178.120.87.219 (
talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yury2015 (
talk)
17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The "Year in United Kingdom" infobox is not displaying correctly on any page - see for example 1890 in the United Kingdom (and every other "<year> in the United Kingdom" page). It's beyond my editing competence to know how to correct it across all the pages. Camboxer ( talk) 12:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I am interested in convincing an IP editor to become a full-fledged member of WP. In order to "sell" the advantages of editor over IP, I need to know what they are. I know a watchlist is one but what are the others? Thanks. . Buster Seven Talk 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this image I uploaded ok for WP before I use it: /info/en/?search=File:Ernst_Rudin_Wearing_Swastika.jpg? How could I verify the source/copyright of it? Wishfulness ( talk) 16:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to set up a Wiki page describing an intellectual property company that offers software to chip designers. How do I set up the page? Thanks in advance, Jonah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C420:48F0:8882:123B:96C6:5511 ( talk) 17:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
As I understand WP:BLPTALK, it permits, when discussing potentially BLP-violating sources, linking those sources on article talk pages so long as the BLP-violating content is not repeated on the talk page. This seems to be the relevant text:
For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating " this link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?"
Would this be a correct understanding of the policy? —Encyclopedia Bob 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe that my interpetation is quite aligned with WP:BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
Why are these three pages (links below) up on Wikipedia? They are entries on DVD releases that DO NOT EXIST. These three volumes are purely the products of someone's imagination. I realize it's impossible to keep up with everything, but it doesn't do much for Wiki's credibility when pages devoted to bogus, nonexistent items like these are allowed to stand. That's how I found about these pages. Someone I know was citing their existence as proof that Wikipedia is unreliable and that anybody can post anything to it, whether true or completely made up.
For the record, the Warner Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies Golden Collection series got no further than Volume 6, released in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.26.225 ( talk) 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
__NOINDEX__
.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
23:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< February 10 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 12 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
This feature seems to have stopped working on 2/5/15. What's the problem? Pkeets ( talk) 06:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Greeting,
Why Telfaz11 page is still marked for deletion ? can you tell me exactly what is missing?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postdepartum ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, please tell me, how much time additional information to a certain article must be in talk page before it can be added to a certain article?-- Yury2015 ( talk) 10:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I added that section to the article "Thought"
"We do not produce thoughts" approach
According to a number of famous philosophers - thoughts aren't produced, aren't formed by the person. Thoughts are timelessly true and are only apprehended by the person. In his work “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry” famous German mathematician, logician and philosopher Gottlob Frege writes that we don't produce thoughts, we apprehend (formulate) them. The apprehension of a thought presupposes someone who apprehends it, who thinks. A person is the bearer of the thinking but not of the thought.
"Thus the thought, for example, which we expressed in the Pythagorean theorem is timelessly true, true independently of whether anyone takes it to be true. It needs no bearer. It is not true for the first time when it is discovered, but is like a planet which, already before anyone has seen it, has been in interaction with other planets. The Thought: A Logical Inquiry, Gottlob Frege. Mind, New Series, Vol.65, No.259 (Jul., 1956), p.302"
That's the result
(cur | prev) 09:23, 11 February 2015 U3964057 (talk | contribs) . . (23,915 bytes) (-1,007) . . (Undid good faith revision 646621159 by Yury2015 (talk). Please do not simply reapply your edits if reverted. As per wiki-best practice, take it to the talk page.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 08:43, 11 February 2015 Yury2015 (talk | contribs) . . (24,922 bytes) (+1,007) . . (See Wikipedia:Five pillars In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:32, 11 February 2015 U3964057 (talk | contribs) . . (23,915 bytes) (-201) . . (Actually this should be removed altogether. It is apparently self-published original research, and added in the face of conflict of interest issues.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 23:45, 10 February 2015 U3964057 (talk | contribs) . . (24,116 bytes) (-1,007) . . (Undid good faith revision 646546256 by Yury2015 (talk). Uncited claims, clarity issues, and likely undue weight.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 20:26, 10 February 2015 Yury2015 (talk | contribs) . . (25,123 bytes) (+1,007) . . (Adding information) (undo) -- Yury2015 ( talk) 12:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you) Dear colleague, tell me please where can I read that kind of rule?
Thank you dear colleagues for your comments. -- Yury2015 ( talk) 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly! What dates are questionable? 10, 20, 30 - 100 years? May be than I should make the section "From the history of study of thought"? Aristotle did study thought and thinking.
178.120.87.219 (
talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yury2015 (
talk)
17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The "Year in United Kingdom" infobox is not displaying correctly on any page - see for example 1890 in the United Kingdom (and every other "<year> in the United Kingdom" page). It's beyond my editing competence to know how to correct it across all the pages. Camboxer ( talk) 12:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I am interested in convincing an IP editor to become a full-fledged member of WP. In order to "sell" the advantages of editor over IP, I need to know what they are. I know a watchlist is one but what are the others? Thanks. . Buster Seven Talk 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this image I uploaded ok for WP before I use it: /info/en/?search=File:Ernst_Rudin_Wearing_Swastika.jpg? How could I verify the source/copyright of it? Wishfulness ( talk) 16:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to set up a Wiki page describing an intellectual property company that offers software to chip designers. How do I set up the page? Thanks in advance, Jonah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C420:48F0:8882:123B:96C6:5511 ( talk) 17:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
As I understand WP:BLPTALK, it permits, when discussing potentially BLP-violating sources, linking those sources on article talk pages so long as the BLP-violating content is not repeated on the talk page. This seems to be the relevant text:
For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating " this link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?"
Would this be a correct understanding of the policy? —Encyclopedia Bob 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe that my interpetation is quite aligned with WP:BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
Why are these three pages (links below) up on Wikipedia? They are entries on DVD releases that DO NOT EXIST. These three volumes are purely the products of someone's imagination. I realize it's impossible to keep up with everything, but it doesn't do much for Wiki's credibility when pages devoted to bogus, nonexistent items like these are allowed to stand. That's how I found about these pages. Someone I know was citing their existence as proof that Wikipedia is unreliable and that anybody can post anything to it, whether true or completely made up.
For the record, the Warner Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies Golden Collection series got no further than Volume 6, released in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.26.225 ( talk) 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
__NOINDEX__
.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
23:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)