Wireless99
Welcome!
Hello, Wireless99, 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
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dan Gluck 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Susan Hurley
editThanks for the message - and yes, I should use this link/information to start a page while it is still there. I am afraid that, like you, I agree that the overall standard of philosophy articles on Wikipedia is terrible. It also seems to take a lot of time to do very little, however. It is good to have help! Anarchia 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- The unique thing about Wikipedia is that, instead of bemoaning the faults of the articles, you can get busy and improve them yourself.Lestrade (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
FOL
editThanks for your comment: I'm back in WPland, after two longish absences.
I've done a bit of editing of the FOL page in the past, and I've never been happy with it, but I thought other articles were more fundamental, especially the core logic article. I've glanced over the page, and it seems to have mostly improved; my knee-jerk criticisms were:
- The article should provide an intuitive grasp of FOL before giving its normal formalisation, and it should be clear that there are several different approaches to its axiomatisation;
- The treatment of the generalisation axiom needs tightening; in particular this point was mocked on the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list way back in 2005, and there are still problems...
- The list of other logics is a bit of a mixed bag, and in particular doesn't distinguish the two sors of way in which a logic may be "higher-order" (one which is multi-sorted FOL in wolf's clothing, the other which is unaxiomatisable);
- The various places where the limits of FOL are treated are often individually confused, and together don't enlighten. My suggestion back in 2005 was to use the completeness & incompleteness theorems for first-order arithmetic as the simplest and most well-understood example of where the limits of FOL lie: I didn't make time to do this myself, and noone else bothered. This together, maybe, with an account of the send in which modal logic is and is not first-order definable, would actually be instructive.
Had you any other complaints about the page? I have to say that, by the standards of the logic pages in general, I don't think they it is too bad. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
April 2015
edit
Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Grant Shapps— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — MusikAnimal talk 16:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at David Cameron with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. — MusikAnimal talk 16:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at George Osborne, you may be blocked from editing. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. KTC (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)