User talk:Phlsph7

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; s/ 1; s/1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Your GA nomination of History

The article History you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History for comments about the article, and Talk:History/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Well-being

The article Well-being you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Well-being for comments about the article, and Talk:Well-being/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Urchincrawler -- Urchincrawler (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of History

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, History, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Seems that every time I come here to thank you for a TFA there's a new FA! Thank you today for Epistemology, "the philosophical study of knowledge. As a major branch of philosophy, it examines the nature of knowledge, distinguishing different types and components. It further explores the sources of knowledge, like perception, and its limits, addressing what people can and cannot know."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's main page has again memories of three people who died, for two just the name and for the third an image (great!) coupled with a little bit from her life which seems too little for my taste. What do you think? - A friend of mine sang in Verdi's Requiem at Trinity Church, - you can watch the lifestream (Verdi about 30 minutes into it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended reading today: Christfried Schmidt, a story about patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Well-being

On 5 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Well-being, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the philosophical study of well-being dates back millennia, empirical research has intensified since the second half of the 20th century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Well-being. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Well-being), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I always appreciate your contributions to these core philosophy articles. It's a tough job but you somehow manage to do it. BorgQueen (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nihilism

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nihilism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Patrick Welsh -- Patrick Welsh (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Metaepistemology/GA1

Talk:Metaepistemology/GA1 needs an experienced GA reviewer for the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025. I'm reaching out to you because I know you're experienced with the philosophy field, and not many are. Your job as an experienced reviewer is pretty easy, just check over the review and provide advice as needed. Alternatively if you know anyone else who may be up for the job, please let me know! Happy editing! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 15:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IntentionallyDense, happy to have a look at the review. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate it a lot! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hedonism

On 9 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hedonism, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure may prevent pleasure? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hedonism. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hedonism), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cielquiparle (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inequality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nihilism

The article Nihilism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nihilism for comments about the article, and Talk:Nihilism/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Patrick Welsh -- Patrick Welsh (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FAC

Hey there, thanks for reaching out, but I'm a little burnt out on Wikipedia at the moment, and have been focusing on some smaller projects. Best of luck on the FAC, sorry I can't help out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: No problem, I hope you find some time to recharge. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Rule of inference

Hello! Your submission of Rule of inference 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GRuban (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deep research

Hi, first of all can I say I am constantly in awe of your contributions. Second, I see you have made a number of AI powered tools, have you tried using deep research through chatgpt to find sources for claims? I have used it extensively (although it is rate limited) and it has never failed me. I would say that if you just ask regular gpt to find a source, it will be tangential at best. Deep research works every time for me. Cheers and keep it up, Draco phyllum 04:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dracophyllum and thanks for the suggestions. I haven't tried Deep research in particular but I'll look into it. What kind of prompt do you typically use to find sources? If I need to find a source for one specific claim, I often try first a simple search on Google or Google Books. A central danger for most AI uses is that their results sound convincing at first sight, but may often contain errors that are difficult to spot. By the way, kudos on your recent core contest entries! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is usually after trying to find things on google scholar. For example, I asked ChatGPT to summarise the main adaptations flowers make as a result of Coevolution, then asked it to find a single peer reviewed article or book. Usually it asks for more clarifying questions if you aren't specific enough. In this case it lead me to this line from here: Floral traits that are usually recorded (in traditional syndromes) include the timing of anthesis, flower colour and scent, flower orientation, flower size and symmetry, overall corolla shape, the position of sexual organs and the reward type. Draco phyllum 21:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have experimented a little with Microsoft Copilot, for example, by asking it to find academic sources that support the claim "...". It often provides links to sources that talk about the subject but do not directly support the claim I'm interested in. I guess OpenAI's Deep research is more specifically made for this type of task, so chances are that it will do better. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw, Deep research is still rather limited if you are not a Pro user: "Plus, Team, Enterprise, and Edu users now get 25 queries per month, Pro users get 250, and Free users get 5." Phlsph7 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is unfortunate. Often without deep research it will give a source that I could use to make an WP:OR claim. For instance if you ask it to find a source for "most flowers have symmetry", it will lead to articles that claim that orchids have symmetry and that there a lot of orchids. Stuff like that. Cheers, Draco phyllum 23:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Core Contest Finished!

The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Promotion of Value theory

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Value theory, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

congrats Phlsph7! Draco phyllum 12:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nihilism

On 9 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nihilism, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that suggested responses to nihilism include detachment, resignation, defiance, disruption, and the creation of new values? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nihilism. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nihilism), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rule of inference

On 17 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rule of inference, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that logicians using classical rules of inference can deduce any arbitrary statement from a contradiction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rule of inference. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rule of inference), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TFA again

Thank you and the team today for History, introduced in admirable simplicity as "the academic study of the past. It analyzes and interprets evidence to construct narratives about what happened and explain why it happened"! - I have Alfred Brendel on the same page and made my story around him. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2025 Core Contest Winners!

The winners of the 2025 Core Contest are announced 🎉. An great turnout with a impressive variety of articles and laudable improvements. The judges (Aza24, Femke and Casliber) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners.

First place (and a prize of £120) goes to Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) for his systemic overhaul of the Political Philosophy article. What was once an unwieldy entry—dominated by a sprawling history section of nearly three dozen subsections!—is now an accessible and well-structured survey of a complex and often polarizing subject. We particularly commend Phlsph7’s global, inclusive, and comprehensive approach. He has once again demonstrated exceptional skill in handling core topics with clarity and balance.
Second place (and a prize of £100) goes to Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) for their outstanding work on both Trunk and Flower. The former was reimagined from a ~200 word stub into a richly detailed and impeccably sourced overview—an effort truly worthy of its dedicatee, the late and much-missed Vami IV. Meanwhile, their improvements to the Flower article transformed an already strong entry into an exceptional one, now well on its way to passing FAC.
Third place (and a prize of £80) goes to Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) for his major development of the Niamey article. The entry now proudly stands among the finest city articles on Wikipedia—from thirty scattered references to nearly 400 high-quality academic sources. We particularly commend his inclusion of numerous French-language sources and thoughtfully comprehensive approach to the topic.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. – Aza24 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Core Contest 2025 prize winner

Hello. Thank you for taking part in this year's Core Contest and congratulations on your win. Could you please write to me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk to coordinate your prize. I may have your address from last year, just making sure it is is till the same. Best wishes, Karla Marte. Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Core Contest Belt

In wrestling, and some other competitions, the previous winner hands over a championship belt to the new champion. As this is all digital, I will pass this barnstar & message. The heavy rewriting of political philosophy frames a broad topic in a very approachable way. The inverted pyramid of concepts is a much clearer approach than the old version's history that abruptly started and abruptly jumped across time and space. It can be a lot to get these broad articles into a more cohesive shape, so thanks and good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rjjiii and thanks for the Core Contest Belt! That's a great idea and it's an honor to follow in your footsteps. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Value theory scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 August 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on Cardinality

Hi Phlsph7, I've read a lot of your work here on Wikipedia, and I really enjoy the style and accessibility of your artilces. I was wondering if you had a minute look at an article I've been working on: Cardinality. Nothing formal, it's not finished (e.g. I haven't put in-line citations in yet and such), just things you like, things you think I should change, things you would have done different, etc. I'm trying to work on writing FA-level content (or at least closer to it). – Farkle Griffen (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Farkle Griffen, that's an interesting project and congratulations on getting Equality (mathematics) to GA by the way. For Cardinality, it would probably be best to do the proposed merge first and then try a GA nomination before making an FA attempt.

A few observations:

Do the sources in the earlier subsections of the history section explicitly talk about cardinality, rather than related concepts? I haven't looked at the sources, but my guess would be that the concept arose primarily with Cantor and set theory. If that's correct, having such a detailed discussion of somehow related earlier developments would violate WP:UNDUE and/or WP:SYNTH.
Personally, I would put the history section at the end, since, presumably, readers are more interested in the mathematics than the intellectual history. But there is no fixed rule here.
Since the lead is supposed to provide an overview of the article, you could try to squeeze in a sentence each on the history and the paradoxes so that those two sections are also covered.
I don't think that etymology is important enough for this topic to deserve a full section. One option might be to condense it into a short paragraph and mention it somewhere in the history section.
As far as I'm aware, the term "cardinality" is also used in computer science with a slightly different meaning. Should this be mentioned somewhere in this article?
If you want to go for FA, you would also have to check that the sources are not only reliable but high-quality, which would create problems for sources like https://mathtimeline.weebly.com/early-human-counting-tools.html.

I hope some of the suggestions are helpful and good luck with the project! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]