User talk:Thewikibeagles

Welcome!

Hello, Thewikibeagles, 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK Thanks Thewikibeagles (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that better?Thewikibeagles (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Preview button

Rather than making serial edits on the same section, it's generally a good idea to hit the Show Preview button first. This will show you what the edit will look like; if you want to include more edits, you can do this right away...then click on Save Page when it's all just as you wish it. All your edits on a single section (for that period) will appear as a single edit in the history, then. hgilbert (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources and original research

You should check out the following Wikipedia policies: WP:Verify, WP:True, and WP:Original research. We are editors collating existing work for an encyclopedia, not critics writing demolishing reviews. McDermott is a respected and published authority. He is thus highly placed as a source, and whether an editor disagrees or agrees with him is actually irrelevant.

Some people find this aspect of Wikipedia very frustrating, especially if they have a definite point of view they want to articulate. Remember: If you are able to publish your thoughts on this, as McDermott did, you will be citable! There are certainly journals out there to publish in... hgilbert (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes

Perhaps you could also help me understand the footnote style. What does [1]:221 mean, for example? And what does the footnote itself mean - 1.^ ab? Thx.

[1]:221 means page 221 on the source in footnote 1. This is used to reduce the length of the reference section. The ^ ab means that there are two citations (a and b) linking to the same reference; clicking on a will bring you to the first place this source is referenced, b to the second. hgilbert (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation

When referring to your own contributions, I suggest you avoid the first person plural, e.g. "We have eliminated the reference to Max Stirner". Unless you actually have a committee sitting around making every decision, or are the sovereign of a nation, there is a single editor who needs to take responsibility for what is done under this user name. HGilbert (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have enjoyed the wit of the name "Wikibeagles" from its first appearance, and found edits made under that name to be admirable in their style, verve and accuracy, like "fenbeagle". [1] But maybe the final "s" seems like a defiance of the customs and usages of this multi-open access website, discomfiting to sticklers for club rules.[2] Figuratively, the notion of a pack of hounds properly trained to scent and chase hares under a Master[3] [4] may delight, but could be distasteful to persons who are squeamish about blood sports. Qexigator (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your very kind comment, Qexigator. Much appreciated. And also for your thoughtfulness about the concept of the wikibeagles. The beagle is indeed a pack animal, most to be admired when going about its proper business through the countryside with its pack. But your point about those for whom bloodsports are objectionable is thoughtful. Do you think we should change our name to "the wikibeagle"? We can still have many thoughts, we suppose, even if we become One. Or should we find another name do you think? Thewikibeagles (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In view of the quotes below, perhaps letting the singular stand for all would suffice: compare with clan name usage such as "The Macleod of that Ilk" (Clan MacLeod), but note[5] - and "When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk, 'kind or sort', is quite recent, having been first recorded at the end of the 18th century. This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase of that ilk, meaning "of the same place, territorial designation, or name." This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed families, Guthrie of that ilk meaning "Guthrie of Guthrie." "Same" is the fundamental meaning of the word. The ancestors of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were common words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but the word hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses."[6]

A Wikipedia search yields:

• Beagles have a great sense of smell and tracking instinct that sees them employed as detection dogs for prohibited agricultural imports and foodstuffs in quarantine around the world. Beagles are intelligent, and popular pets because of their size, even temper, and lack of inherited health problems....Snoopy of the comic strip Peanuts has been promoted as "the world's most famous beagle". ("In earlier strips it is not clear to whom Snoopy belongs.")
• The Talbot (dog) was a white hunting dog which is now extinct because of its lack of purpose and need for constant care, but it has been credited with being an ancestor of the modern beagle and bloodhound. The term talbot is used in heraldry to refer to a good-mannered hunting dog.
• The North Country Beagle, Northern Hound or Northern Beagle was a breed of dog that existed in Britain probably until early in the 19th century. The exact date of its extinction is not known; it is likely that it was gradually interbred with other breeds, particularly the modern Beagle, until the genuine North Country Beagle bloodline ceased to exist.
• The Southern Hound was a breed of dog that existed in Britain probably until sometime in the 19th century. The exact date of its extinction is not known; it is likely that it was gradually interbred with other breeds until the genuine Southern Hound bloodline ceased to exist. The origins of the Southern Hound are equally unclear. Most writers suggest that it is derived from the Talbot, which was a predominantly white, slow, deep-throated, scent hound, also of uncertain origin, though it is sometimes claimed that it came from Normandy. It is suggested that at some point the Talbot was crossed with Greyhounds to give them an extra turn of speed.However, in The Dog published in 1852, William Youatt states that the Southern Hound may have existed in Britain since ancient times rather than being brought from France by the Normans.
• The Harrier (dog) is cheerful, sweet-tempered, tolerant of people, and it is excellent with children. This pack dog is good with other dogs, but should be supervised with non-canine pets unless it is raised with them from puppyhood. It prefers life in a pack with people, dogs, or both. This active dog likes to go exploring, sniffing, and trailing, so be sure to keep it on a leash or in a safe enclosed area. Some Harriers like to bay....The Harrier is the most commonly used hound by hunts in Ireland....This breed of dog is recognized in 1885 by the American Kennel Club and is classified in the Hound Group.

Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Often the practice is that should a beagle grow too large, i.e. over 17" at the withers, it is dismissed from the beagle pack and sent to a harrier pack. A harrier is really just a large beagle, in between the 23" foxhound and the larger of the two beagle groups, 15" vs. 13". The American foxhound is larger at 25" and rangier than the English foxhound. I am glad to find someone on wikipedia who is sympathetic to these wonderful animals. My feeling though is that the Talbot should not be classified as a beagle. How foolish of the UK Mars team to name their craft Beagle II. I could have told them it would take off an never be seen again. They should have kept it on a short leash, or called it Dachshund perhaps. Thewikibeagles (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but also "TheGleneagles" (Îlot-Trafalgar-Gleneagles, Montreal) = singular. Qexigator (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PoF: German critique of a commentator

I have only noticed today that Sergei O. Prokofieff has this external link[7]. Perhaps the PoF aticle should have it too? It is a published review of Prokofieff's book on PoF. Adding it as an external link could be an improvement to the PoF article, not only as a reasoned critique but also for the information it gives (in a tertiary way), such as the correspondence with Rosa Mayreder. At one point the reviewer seems to be saying that anthroposophy cannot be unlocked with The Philosophy of Freedom if the latter has not been sufficiently understood. But I have to rely on Google translation, which in parts is incomprehensible. The review mentions what are seen as shortcomings in Prokofieff's work, particularly that he has not studied philosophy systematically, but it also brings a reader's attention to Prokofieff's merits, as a reasoned discussion should, and a critical reader can also see for him/her -self what may be shortcomings in the reviewer's position.

Actually, this is one reason for mentioning Steiner's own words about ToK as foundation and justification, in the 1924 edition; and to get a yet more rounded picture a reader could consider another commentary such as Bondarev's, published with the Graham B. Rickett translation, in the book 'Rudolf Steiner's Philosophie der Freiheit as the Foundation of the Logic of Beholding [ISBN 978-1-105-05765-6]. per Bondarev (Foreword): 'Initially, Rudolf Steiner developed his epistemological ideas on the basis of his research into the world-view of Goethe. But he soon formulated his own basic principles, too, which were completely new for traditional science. ...Rudolf Steiner devoted much attention to working out the principles of evolutionism in knowledge. As his starting-point he chose Goethe’s doctrine of metamorphosis. Thanks to the new methodology, this was extended to include the spheres of soul-spiritual processes, of metahistory and the entire process of cosmic development. On a strict, systematic basis Rudolf Steiner introduced into his science and its methodology an element that has tremendously enriching value for knowledge, namely, esotericism, by which is meant the experience of knowledge of the laws of the existence of supersensible worlds.'

Also noted, that Google search presents downloads of Bondarev's work at[8] (and a link for the complete, original Russian edition). There may not be many English-language readers of the PoF article who would be willing or able to follow through with Bondarev as further reading, but there may be a few and it does some good to let inquirers know that it is there for them if they choose. While Russia is the homeland and Russian the mother-tongue of both the older man, Bondarev, and the younger, S.O.Prokofiieff, it may be surmised that their apparent differences are not due only to their works being translated into German for critical German readers, but it may be less easy to see how far apart they are in their presentation of Steiner's works. Are they more complementary than they would admit? Qexigator (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

Is there something wrong with the footnote section? I can see the footnotes, but I can't edit them. Hgilbert, can you help? Qexigator, can you help? Thewikibeagles (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wish I could help with this.There is a distinction between (foot)notes and Reflist items. The a,b,c linkage method for footnting and reflist is explained somewhere, but in practice seems to belong to Wikipedia arcana-esoteric-occult, designed for the adept to the exclusion of those on nursery slopes who rely simply on < ref >...< /ref >, as does...Qexigator (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean then that those of us on the bunny slopes can't edit footnotes? I seem to have done it before, as it were by instinct, but now when I look at the footnotes under "Edit" for that section, there is nothing except this:

Footnotes are composed inline; if you edit the body of the text you will see something like this: Johnson said...<ref>Johnson, ''Book'',...</ref>. Editing the text within the "ref" html markup symbols will change the footnote content. HGilbert (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Thewikibeagles (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the solution is to edit the footnotes within the body of the text of the article, like an in-text citation. It seems OK practically, but it does mean you can't run through the footnotes checking for consistency of style and so forth. Thewikibeagles (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Does it seem right to others to include ISBN numbers? It is certainly not something one would do in a scholarly article, I think. It looks a bit clunky, especially if it is not done uniformly, i.e. for every book or article that is given a reference. What does everyone think? My inclination is to cut out ISBN numbers. They are not hard to find, and the references with them do not conform to any style type, e.g. ACS or APA or MLA. What do the gods of wikipedia itself tell us about this? I have not yet learned how to speak to them. Or perhaps I am entertaining them unawares Thewikibeagles (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

ISBNs do no harm, and can help with Google search. Let them stay if given. Qexigator (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

All right then. That was easy. Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Philosophy of Freedom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free (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, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

English

Would it not be better to give in English, with source, adding the German if necessary?[9] --Qexigator (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

How do you mean, Q? (Are you from Q-branch, by the way?) Thewikibeagles (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You will now have seen[10]. Q?Yes or No: [11],[12]. You may guess it but I could not possibly comment. Qexigator (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. Thewikibeagles (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:PoF Title.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:PoF Title.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 03:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content from The Philosophy of Freedom

Did you mean to remove much of the section describing the second half of the book? HGilbert (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I must look! Help!Thewikibeagles (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Joking apart, the series of your later edits from here[13] to here[14] makes it impracticable to help otherwise than by proposing that you go back to the status quo ante[15] and proceed again to make the revisions intended. Qexigator (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything looks OK somehow. I had inadvertently deleted most of the material under "Exercising Freedom", but it seems to have come back. I am happy with the material before, if everyone else is. I plan to go ahead in "Understanding Freedom" with Chh. 6 and 7. I am uneasy about "Understanding" vs. "Exercising" freedom, because Part II is about understanding freedom ("The Idea of Freedom") and Part I really isn't about freedom specifically but about thinking, perception and knowledge, i.e. epistemology. Then in Part II comes the application of the epistemology, but the epistemology is about knowledge and the rest, not about freedom, except as a preparation and preliminary. "Theory of Knowledge" and "Theory and Practice of Freedom" would be more accurate, but too clunky. Any ideas? Thewikibeagles (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You may know that Rita Stebbing's version (1963) gives: first part "The Knowledge of Freedom", second part "The Reality of Freedom". Qexigator (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

HGilbert, I see now that you managed to restore the deleted material without taking away the additions to the "Understanding Freedom" discussion. Thank you. Thewikibeagles (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Trimming?

Thanks for your engagement with the Philosophy of Freedom article. Do you feel, as I do, that the sections on its content are in danger of getting a little too long for the casual reader, and that it's also difficult to discern the structure within these long sections? I wonder if we can't trim and edit for clarity and brevity...and perhaps add some subheadings. What do you think? HGilbert (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with your observations. My plan was to get the elements of the piece firmly in place, and then to start to get some cutting and editing going from all sides. I do think the narrative arc isn't there at the moment, and for the average reader the thing is too dense, although I suppose it must be said that for the average reader the PoF does appear dense. I haven't ever felt that; quite the reverse. It's nothing like Kant. So once I have got to the end of Part I I will take up your suggestion and start slimming the thing down, and I'll welcome any assistance with that - not an easy thing, I think. I do very much appreciate the spirit of your remarks. Thewikibeagles (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Another plan. Would you like to zip through Part I "Knowledge of Freedom" on your own without interference and see if you can get it into a trimmer state with a smoother flow, and then I'll do an edit, and we could follow the same procedure with anyone else who feels as we do, as Qexigator may, for example? Thewikibeagles (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Philosophy of Freedom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conception. 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) 09:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 10 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Philosophy of Freedom page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

PoF, recent edits

Something has been going wrong with the recent edits, both in style and otherwise.[16], [17] Will you be cleaning this up soon, or leave it to another? Qexigator (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear! What is wrong? Thewikibeagles (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Philosophy of Freedom page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Prof. E.O.J. Westphal with Students.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Prof. E.O.J. Westphal with Students.jpg, which you've attributed to Althea Westphal. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

New article for a philosopher

There is now an article on Jonathan Westphal,[18] but see my comment 'I don't know who Thewikibeagles is but I have seen a name at metadata linked bove,'[19] and my comment back in July 2012 on Speedy deletion[20]. Qexigator (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Clark (philosopher)

The article Michael Clark (philosopher) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Clark (philosopher)

Hello Thewikibeagles,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Michael Clark (philosopher) for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Once it is deleted, you are allowed to recreate the article but without any WP:COPYVIOs. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Beagle without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kinetic37 (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I am so very sorry Kinetic37. It was a mistake. The Beagle article is a model of a wikipedia article on an important and interesting subject. I am horrified to have damaged it, and thank you for restoring it. Kind regards, the wikibeagles.

You're welcome! And don't worry too much about it, mistakes happen :) Kinetic37 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Caption

Qexigator, you are very droll. It's a county cricket tie, not a college tie, though. Thewikibeagles (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The article would gain added depth if JW, as a member or player, is entitled to wear it, and including this would endear him to cricket-lovers everywhere. Qexigator (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If you know, could the image caption[21] include "wearing.....college necktie"? Qexigator (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

+ or may be: "Jonathan as railway travelling bloke, not to be confused with The Sentimental Bloke from Oz"[22]? Qexigator (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC) . . .

You mean like Schiller plus le Carre? That's about right!Thewikibeagles (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Droller and droller! Qexigator (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should be "The Naive and Sentimental Beagles"?

Er... that "I" could be interpreted by a simpleton as a naive and sentimental self-outing, while others would suppose that a philosopher such as JW would be well able to distinguish the "I" from the "I-ness" of the "I", illustrated with reference to Goethe's theory of colour. But the image cipher was first added on 10 June[23] by Thewikibeagles, and there is nothing else that Qexigator sees to verify the image as one of JW, apart from lookalike images at the Amherst College and Hampshire College links. The article image shows spectacles of another style, and the cap may fit but could be concealing baldness, unlike the uncovered images from those other two sources. According to the principle "assume good faith", and noting[24], the possibility of hoax or prank is not to be entertained. Yet close inspection shows that the image has a message to convey: the peak of the cap at first directs the glance to the piercing gaze of a pair of eyes, each in its own frame, and then the glance moves upward to the message in the frame above the empty seat -- "IN FEAR...BRING OUT THE BOLD", as in JWT Singapore[25], which returns the glance to the smiling teeth. Smiley! and there we have it, as in works of fiction: a lad from Oz[26] or in the novels of the 2011 winner of the Goethe Medal. An in depth multiple rebus, perhaps. Qexigator (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Thewikibeagles. 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)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Prof. E.O.J. Westphal with Students.pdf

A tag has been placed on File:Prof. E.O.J. Westphal with Students.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Thewikibeagles. 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)

Just no

I'm not going to template someone who's been around since 2012 (albeit with few edits), but please take note: edits like this are vandalism. Please desist. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Thewikibeagles. 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ernst Westphal

The article Ernst Westphal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, no evidence of notability. A link to a list of publications does not indicate notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. PamD 12:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

When creating an article, please take care to search thoroughly to see if it already exists (this one did). In this case the creator and the many later editors of the article Ernst Oswald Johannes Westphal should have created a redirect from the simplest form of his name, Ernst Westphal: if they'd done so, you wouldn't have wasted your time creating the duplicate. Ah well, these things happen. Happy Editing! PamD 17:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Pam D! Happy Christmas! Jonathan Westphal - (youngest son of EOJ)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrei Bely, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Petersburg. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of The Philosophy of Freedom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Philosophy of Freedom, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Philosophy of Freedom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Indentation

Don't make a mess, learn to indent your talk pages posts. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:The Philosophy of Freedom, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice. Thewikibeagles (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:The Philosophy of Freedom. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean the comment about Crowley? Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Ahem! Thewikibeagles (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner's works

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sourcing summaries of non-fiction texts (in articles on those texts). tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John O. Lyle (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I'm tla was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John O. Lyle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TLA^tlak 13:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Thewikibeagles! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! TLAtlak 13:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John O. Lyle (March 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John O. Lyle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Aims for Industry. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. Leoneix _(talk) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Leonix. I was getting ready to edit the page. In its time Aims of Industry was important, so I thought I would give it a go. Thewikibeagles (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Aims for Industry moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Aims for Industry, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thx for the help. I hadn't quite worked out how to make a draft! Thewikibeagles (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John O. Lyle (April 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Paul W were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John O. Lyle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Paul W (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sucralose into Draft:John O. Lyle. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)