User talk:Ollyoxenfree

Welcome!

Hello, Ollyoxenfree, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages[edit]

Please see WP:TP for information about using talk pages and signing comments. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Biology[edit]

As you almost certainly know by now, I am the person that has been working with you on Evidence of common descent. I am in fact working on my major in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology right now and I am glad to see someone of your age so highly interested and engrossed in a complex scientific subject! Your edits to the article have been fine, but unfortunately, because of your age, they often need a bit of a “fix-up” (nothing discourteous nor any objections). I would be glad to help you learn various functions of Wikipedia. Feel free to ask any questions. I did gander through your blog by the way. Keep up the good work! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who has read my edits will see I'm having problems with writing the Main Article heading for my edits any suggestions?--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading over this and it might help. My suggestion would be to think of the writing as explanatory and not directed toward a particular audience. For example, “Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.” That is purely informative and undirected towards any specific audience. You would avoid saying, “What is evolution? Overtime, animals reproduce through generation after generation. During this process, the traits of the animals change. This is evolution in the most basic sense.” This does not sound bad, but is sloppy for an encyclopedia. Also read this. Hopefully this helps! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No like this:

Main article: Fish

Oh sorry about that! I misunderstood what you were saying.

{{Main}} - Main article
{{Details}} – For more details on this topic, see
{{Further}} – Further information:
{{Related}} – Related terms:
{{also}} – See also

After the word in the brackets type a "|" (without quotes) and then the title of the article linking to it. Do not use square brackets in the text unless it is for the "further" item.

It will look like: {{Main|Fish}}

Read this for more help. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thank

Sorry got a problem still the link goes to "Main".

When you type two {, the word main, a |, a title of the article such as fish, and the another two } it should work. Make sure you do not use square brackets. Use the curly brackets only. The word before the vertical bar (|) is what writes the italicized text such as Main. The word after the vertical bar denotes the link that you are directing to. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 22:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There you go! You can use that for anything.

For this one, you need the square brackets around the article title.

A. Z. Colvin • Talk 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this for more help. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 23:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology![edit]

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

Browse the new WikiProject page
Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss with me?[edit]

Hi Ollyoxenfree,

I wanted to see if you were still an active Wikipedia editor and to invite you to discuss the renaming of the article Evidence of common descent. See: Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Article_Title and Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Requested_move_5_March_2016.

Cheers! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seen/unseen[edit]

I was going to leave this reply on the Talk page, but its more personally directed, so I'll leave it here.

To me, one of the most inciteful philosophical ideas in my life came not from a philosopher, but from an economist. Frédéric Bastiat wrote the essay That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen. In it, he drives home the point that our everyday perceptions (that which is seen) betray us because its harder to perceive the underlying (that which unseen) causes and effects. In this case, it is very easy to see social differences because we can, say, measure how many minorities get philosophy degrees, how many get tenure, how many write books, etc. - but what is unseen and harder to quantify is the underlying cause. Is there some sexist or racist element that convinces non-white, non-men to avoid getting a philosophy degree? I find that doubtful, and don't know of any data or personal stories suggesting that. It seems much more likely that people just make different choices. Its kind of interesting to think that so many gender and race studies programs in campuses today is actually exacerbating the problems they claim, since more people are going into those programs than philosophy, STEM, etc.

Philosophy is about examining the unseen. Don't get trapped by your perceptions. -- Netoholic @ 18:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a racist and sexist element that prevents women and minorities getting philosophy degrees with as high frequency. The most relevant to the field being the ongoing prejudice within it, there's a reason nearly every philosopher has heard a story of two from "What is it like to be a woman in philosophy?" Not knowing even a story or two to me makes me suspicious of your background in the field, even more suspicious is your attribution to some economist an idea that's been front and centre in major disciplines of philosophy since David Hume. I also find it hard to believe that some segments of the population are somehow drawn to humanities disciplines and yet never philosophy specifically (see: the much higher rates of marginalized groups in literally every other kind of humanities department).

Your flagging of your distaste for race and gender studies programs indicates to me at least that you're examining neither the unseen or your perceptions, instead you are another level below if we're going to carry on this Platonist metaphor, in the realm of preconception, opinion, and illusion. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"a story or two"... Where is the evidence that college advisors are steering women and minorities away from choosing philosophy (or STEM, etc for that matter)? Don't those students have near complete control over their intended course of study? Honestly, what you're implying borders on conspiracy theory. Now, I will concede that there are places, like that blog you mentioned, that gain a lot of attention by asserting that there is some conspiracy of sexism/racism, but where is the evidence rather than anecdote? Wouldn't it be more likely that someone would claim sexism to gain attention rather than actually suffering such sexism, especially when neither evidence nor logic suggests that anyone is preventing women from going into that field of study in college? -- Netoholic @ 03:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The APA has a committee on the status of women for precisely this reason, the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado released a very lengthy report on the extent of the sexism and abuse in their philosophy department, and Yale has repeatedly attempted to cover up massive abuses by Thomas Pogge, a major philosopher of our generation. That's just the details that come to mind. I believe far more problems would come up if it weren't for the fact that our university system was hedged so far in favour of tenured professors, every grad student and adjunct faculty member is expendable. Those, combined with anecdotes (which grow more powerful when you consider just how few philosophers and grad students there are, with such a small sample size those anecdotes are even more frightening), indicate the extent of the problem. By the way, "getting attention" is not a likely reason for someone to post anonymously on a blog. If you were only in it for the attention, you could go public. The evidence does suggest that there is a sexism problem in philosophy, and your careless use of the word logic continues to force my skepticism about your familiarity with philosophy as a discipline. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By what mechanism are women systematically convinced to not enter into (or complete) philosophy degrees? Are curriculum advisors convincing them not to? Are universities cancelling female enrollments in philosophy courses? Are professors systematically giving women lower grades? -- Netoholic @ 05:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either scared off by the sexist state of the discipline, drop out of grad programs which are stressful enough without cruel peers, or not hired as philosophers coming out of their grad program which is hard enough without being a woman. Is that so hard to conceive of for you? -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a circular argument (now you see why I mentioned logic above). You claim that women are scared off of philosophy degree programs as an effect of sexism AND is also a cause of sexism. People like you that say such things simply want to claim there is institutional sexism/racism without actually proving it. Its both lazy and wrong. -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a circular argument, I never said that being scared away from philosophy grad programs is a cause of sexism. I did however present evidence that sexism is a problem acknowledged within the philosophy community which you conveniently ignored and I explained how as you asked "women are systematically convinced not to [become philosophers]". Also, "people like you" I feel so honoured to be given a title with such a long history of being used by xenophobes against people without the same affliction. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Void (philosophy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plenum. 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) 11:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Ollyoxenfree. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ollyoxenfree. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ollyoxenfree. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]