Hello Pfhorrest, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. the skomorokh 20:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{Merge}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 11:15 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, I was trying to subst the date in there with {{subst:date}}, which I saw recommended somewhere (on the merge how-to page, I think). Thanks for cleaning up my mess. -Pfhorrest (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you have a moment I would appreciate your input in the discussion at template talk:particular human rights#Template title about the title of the template (one of the pieces that I split {{human rights}} into). You seem to know a lot about human rights so would value your perspective on the title. Once you have seen this you can delete it. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently proposed a category rename, and wanted to know if the word "the" should be included in the title? See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_26#Category:Diseases_of_skin_appendages. Would you, and perhaps some of your friends, mind taking a look at the category, and comment as to whether the word "the" is needed? Regardless, thank for all your work on wikipedia! kilbad (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have done a lot of work on this... could we add Prostitutes (or "sex workers", whatever appears more appropiate) as rights holders to the templates, (see World Charter for Prostitutes' Rights).--SasiSasi (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. I'd probably go with "Sex workers" rather than "Prostitutes". Feel free to add it yourself. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your removing of soapboxing on rights. That was ridic. Piratejosh85 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo Forrest, I was wondering what you were intending on doing with the Metaphilosophy/quotations page. Masses of quotations are implausible candidates for encyclopaedia articles, and are rather frowned upon as a result. I suggested it be transwikied to the Wikiquote page on metaphilosophy, but this suggestion was rebuffed so I thought I'd see if you had any thoughts on the matter. Great work cleaning up the analytic moral philosophy articles over the past few months by the way. Regards, Skomorokh 06:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular plans for it myself, Philogo just dumped a bunch of quotes onto Metaphilosophy while we were merging it with the old Definition of Philosophy article, and rather than just delete them all (seemed like a useful resource) I moved them to a subpage. (I considered talk at first, but they're just too damn huge). I agree that transwiki sounds like a better solution. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I have a few questions. I hope you wouldn't mind entertaining them.

• ) Are you aware in undoing the recent edits on rights some of the original text from the page was lost? Specifically, the information about rights being universal and egalitarian was lost. This wasn't my addition; in fact, it was probably yours. Just wanted to bring that up.
• ) What value, if any, do you think was lost in the information removed from the page on rights. If no value, that's fine.
• ) If you find there was valuable ideas in the information you reverted, do you have plans on putting it back in some more useful/appropriate manner?

Thanks for all your work here, Piratejosh85 (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, sorry for the big revert without much explanation, I was going to post one but something came up at work and I didn't have the time. I plan on looking over your edits and my revert and writing some more extensive comments on the talk page there tonight, if I have time, though feel free to open that discussion yourself if I don't get to it first.

Also, I was also not aware that some of the original text was lost in the revert; thanks for pointing that out.

Talk to you soon on Talk:Rights. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering if you would have time to attend to these questions. I'm of the opinion that you may be right about the "essay" nature of the addition, but I believe there to be valueable information in there. No rush, just wanting to get a handle on your thoughts. Piratejosh85 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you for reminding me, I forgot all about this. Commenting in a moment... --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pfhorrest, I've had a chance to look at and consider you work on Talk:Rights. I hope you'll be happy with what I've responded (I think you probably will). Would you be willing to take a look? Thanks, Piratejosh85 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pfhorrest, I think you have probably been busy. I am thinking about making the changes you proposed on rights. Do you have any objections, in light of (1)my comments here on your talk page or (2) what I wrote the rights talk page. Thanks Piratejosh85 (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have been busy, sorry. I have no objections to you making some of the compromises we discussed on Talk:Rights, and if I have any objections to any specific edits I'll just edit/comment on them myself when I have time. Thanks :-) --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorrest, you reverted an edit I made on the If and only if page. I have written on the talk page (Talk:If_and_only_if#can_vs._will) as to why I made the edit. If you could please read that and then either reaffirm, or revert, your original reversion, I would appreciate it. —Iamthedeus (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your deletion @ rights. Nice work and keep up the dilligence. Cheers, Piratejosh85 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the support :-D --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not call my edits on the entry for natural law "vandalism." I am an Aristotle scholar. And ethnocentric ties and natural law is a fast growing body of scholarship. You may not agree with this scholarship, but it's a POV, and up to the reader to decide.--Daniel090909 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have me confused with User:RJC, who is the one who reverted your edits, not me. He also called your edits "original research", not "vandalism". He did however call another recent edit "vandalism", and reverted that to a version by me. Maybe that is the source of the confusion? --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I'm dissatisfied with this article and I'll be working on it soon to get it up to speed with more sources and clarity. I thought my additions were constructive; please provide a better explanation why you reverted my edits. I'm dissatisfied with the statement that rights are only "permissions" or "entitlements" -- permissions by whom? for what? in what contexts? And I think there's a lot more to the concept of "rights" than only legal/moral aspects; I think the concept undergirds much of Western civilization.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. I'm going to move this conversation to Talk:Rights, if you don't mind... see you there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See you there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you can equate freedom and entitlement? Freedom is our right to do as we choose within reason. Where entitlements are obligations on the government. Rights are inherent and natural freedoms that people and the government must respect and defend. Entitlements are promises by government to be provided to all eligible. The key word is eligible, only those deemed by government who determines are the beneficiaries of government goods and services. Government is limited by the people, not the all powerful who grant rights to us. --Mtnewc19 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtnewc19 (talk • contribs)

I have instituted a modified version of his edits at rights. Please review Piratejosh85 (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for reverting. But you commented: "some reasoning is purely internal, not argumentative; and not all arguments appeal to reason"

1. Internal reasoning can certainly be used in philosophy. One can philosophise silently.

2. Not all arguments appeal to reason, correct. And for that very reason they are not properly philosophical.

Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted you to know I removed your listing of Progress (history) at WP:RM under Uncontested Requests because it is already subject to a still open discussion. I see you wrote "apparently was never auto-listed here by bot a the template claimed it would be" as your edit summary, but it is listed by the bot in the lower section under January 24. It should stay open for another 2 days or so and an admin will probably come along and close it shortly thereafter. Station1 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason that this comment was removed was just automatically because Yorkshirian has just been indefinitely community banned for his edits to other articles, see Wikipedia:Ani#Yorkshirian so we don't really need to worry about arguing with his POV at human rights any more! Ajbpearce (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your helpful edits. I am sure you are more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. The article as it appeared when you edited it was the result of an editor who "erroneously" deleted most of the article which made it lose context. I cobbled it back together without "undo" to be cooperative and to improve the article, but forget to put back certain details and citations. When I saw your edits, I jumped to conclusions that it was another series of harassing edits rather than well meaning improvements, and that was a mistake on my part.--DCX (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pfhorrest. You have new messages at Tommy2010's talk page.
Message added 01:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 01:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just stopping by to say that I checked out the art you linked to on your page. I like it. I estpecially like the one that's something like psudo-self portrait. NE way, just saying I though it was cool. Good work on Rights these days also Piratejosh85 (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh, nice to know someone actually found their way to my page. If you have any comments on any of my writing there, like my philosophy book, I'd love to hear that too. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, I've started to question my sanity, but triple checking the history of the article confirms it: There were two identical sections titles Arguments for meta-ethical relativism in the article. I merely removed a duplicate. So your edit seems to be based of the wrong assumption that I deleted that section entirely. Just like this poster on my talk page thought. I went over the two titles letter by letter, they were identical (compare section 4 and 8 here). --Dschwen 13:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pfhorrest, how are you? I see that you've done a little bit of editing in regards to Marathon related articles, and articles regarding philosophy. I also see that you have a good understanding on writing standards, grammar etc. In my opinion, all of the articles related to Bungie's Marathon are sub par in terms of standards, writing, and delivery, and I am currently in the process of trying to overhaul them so they can be more suitable for an encyclopedia. I wanted to ask if you could help me out by peer reviewing all the future changes I plan on making to these articles in the next coming weeks? - RiseRobotRise (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I'd be happy. Just let me know which articles you're working on and I'll add them to my watchlist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the articles in question are Marathon Trilogy, Marathon, Marathon 2: Durandal, Marathon Infinity, and Aleph One. All of them need a lot of work done to make them suitable for an encyclopedia. Any help is appreciated. In the Aleph One page, I added in descriptions for custom netscripts , and I'd like you to take a look at here. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiseRobotRise (talk • contribs) 05:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)--RiseRobotRise (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon Trilogy talk page is getting to be too long with conversations dating back years. The most recent topic on that page was said by me, and it garnered no response whatsoever. I am considering archiving the entire thing because it is very long and contains obsolete information and dialogue that has either been addressed or removed from the article completely. What are your thoughts? --RiseRobotRise (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just set up an archive bot script with reasonable settings and let it archive things as they get old or too long automatically. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went ahead and created the first archive. --RiseRobotRise (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a section to Marathon. I noticed that the marathon as a leg of the full distance triathlon wasn't mentioned, so I added it. I'd appreciate if you would check it over for accuracy, grammar, etc.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 23:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The marathon thread above caught my interest, because I'm training for the Ironman.

I think you misunderstand; the thread above is about Bungie's 1994 computer game Marathon and its sequels, spinoffs, and fan community — not about the actual running event. :-) --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. :) Well, I think the real thing is better for you.  ;) The Transhumanist 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the outlines (short for "hierarchical outlines") on Wikipedia are topic outlines, though a few have evolved into a hybrid between topic and sentence outlines.

The main differences between a hierarchical outline and a prose document is format. A hierarchical outline is a type of tree structure.

They are easier (faster) to read for those who are used to or who prefer them. They also show the relationship (parental, offspringship, siblingship, etc.) between the topics presented and are therefore more useful for navigation since most of the topics are linked.

The Outline of rights is a branch of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which now includes over 500 outlines. They all share the same basic format.

Most outlines on a subject are more comprehensive than the article on the corresponding subject, and organized more strictly by the relationship between the topics that make up the subject.

Outlines may suffer from the same problem of incompleteness as other articles when they are first created. But if we blank the outline, then it won't be readily available for other editors to find and improve.

I didn't create this particular outline, but I would be happy to work on it.

The Transhumanist 23:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the benefits of cross-training in the training section of marathon.

Where do you think it would fit best?

The Transhumanist 00:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of listing rights by type in one of the section of the Outline of rights.

Please feel free to comment on the organization of the section, help reorganize it, and of course in adding rights I haven't found yet. There seem to be a great deal of rights (and Wikipedia articles on types of rights as well as specific rights).

The Transhumanist 00:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, now the Freedom (philosophy) redirects to a disambiguation page, could you help fix those links that now point to that disambig per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 22:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If youre not too busy, I'd like to hear your input on a current editoral debate. The issue with the human article is that its grounded in a taxonomical approach, rather than a neutral approach. Due the excess of science-based people, I'd like to hear things from a philosophical perspective - you and CharlesGillingham come to mind. My version is currently at human being. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See Talk:Human#Update -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to edit Talk:Human at the moment (too long I suspect, something keeps crashing my browser) but I have a request for you: please try to complete your edits in fewer submits, as editing piecemeal like you've been floods the watchlists of people who have "show all edits" turned on like I do. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, (can't find ATM) there's a flag in your prefs that if checked will produce an [edit] tab for the lead section of articles. Might be useful? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS:"Lead section editing can be enabled through Special:Preferences → Gadgets → Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page." -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't think that will help; I wasn't trying to edit a lede, but the whole "Human / person" section, making several comments at once. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, maybe you can pass this along to Talk:Human for me, much abbreviated because I'm very upset from several browser crashes eating the longer versions: "Per WP:SPOV, we must give priority to the scientific point of view, but we must not exclude notable non-scientific points of view. Religious views on humans are clearly widespread enough for the fact that people hold those views to be notable, so they should be included: however, we must be careful not to present the issue as simply 'Science says X but Jesus says Y.' Whether the material Chris redacted was that simplistic or not is not something I have any opinion on; it did not seem perfect to be but I do not strongly object to it either." --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Talk:Human#sup -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for chiming in. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 07:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorest, we were having a short exchange of ideas here. I was wondering about your opinion concerning my point. I would like to add to the relevant parts that there is a no consent in the matter. Thanks in advance.--Faust (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your idea of a pragmatic analysis of philosophy. I am just wondering of you know 'Über den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt sich aber nicht für die Praxis' by Immanuel Kant? Since pragmatic is usually wielded as a form of 'praxis' I thought it might benefit you. It benefited me, that is for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust (talk • contribs)

Actually I have not read that, but it sounds fascinating. I agree with Kant on many issues (and disagree with him on plenty too), and hearing what he has to say about the practicality of philosophy sounds like an interesting read. The (slightly inaccurate, idiomatic) translation of that appears to be "On the Old Saw: That May Be Right in Theory but It Won't Work in Practice". I can't seem to find a version of this viewable online anywhere; before I go looking for a library copy, would you be chance happen to know somewhere I could find the full text online? Thanks. --Pfhorrest (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorest, I would first like to say that I appreciate your feedback. It is, much contrary to my experience, well thought out and you actually have reasons and a belief for your opinion. I am learning a thing or two and I am having fun examining my own opinion. The reason I am leaving this comment is because I have no doubt that the separation you are making is a valid one, but that it is one that is normally disputed. My teacher said that I should be carfull calling virtue ethics teleology and I am now realizing he wasn't kidding ;-) . Anyway, I would like to discuss the matter with you here and leave the talk page for a more practical approach. If we take Aristotelianism as an example, then we must conclude that his telos (eudaemonia) is the very model of 'goal' that is ment in teleology. And if we examine his Ethica Nichomachea, is it not the case that he only specifies certain points for his son as and because of examples? --Faust (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorrest, I am leaving this message because I am surprised and disappointed in the latest turn of our dispute(s). I am aware of the fact that several opinions exist on any matter. The idea is that none of these opinions should be depicted as true or moral valuable than any others. I think there is no reason why such things should not be resolved. Both opinions should be taken down as positions and we should try to agree on an impartial explanation of the general term. I am aware that this is where we have stranded, but I think that this points towards an attempt at stating mere linguistics at the introduction. Now, we are arguing that in several topics. Lets not get ahead of ourselves and simply examine the information we have and not let ourselves be stressed by arguments that some users are bringing to en.wiki from another place. These users do not know the importance of this matter, nor are interested in philosophy, nor know much about it (which is why I know the interruption is personal). I hope we can regain our philosophical distance and reach an agreement. --Faust (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is about the latest changes to Morality, but I can't tell anymore. Faust, you have not presented any substantial references to support your version and thus there is no reason why the by substantial references supported version of this text, something largely developed I might add by Pfhorrest himself, should not be included. It seems that you cannot find consensus for what you propose Faust. If you don't have consensus then it cannot be included in the article in that way. If you want to publicize your version, might I suggest you write a scientific article on the subject and get it published by a respectable organization. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Faust,

I mean you no ill will, but I do believe your editing behavior here on Wikipedia is proving unconstructive. I will admit that this entire ordeal has forced me to think much about the practicality of the consensus process, not so much here on Wikipedia, but in general. I have long been a fan of "talking things to death" as some would say, and I agree wholeheartedly with some of your comments on other pages (the ANI noticeboard, user talk pages, etc) that majority agreement, even overwhelmingly vast majority agreement, does not constitute the truth.

But in recent times (outside of Wikipedia) I have realized that sometimes arguments / debates / conversations end up just spiralling in circles forever to no end; and if those discussions have any bearing on any practical action (even something as minor as building an online encyclopedia), when it reaches that point of impasse you have to withdraw from the stalled discussion and simply take action on the best course which you can determine. And when it comes to that point of action versus opposing action, whoever has the power on their side (in this case, as in many, power being equal to community support) will "win" the debate, even if an omniscient observer might have judged them in the wrong. (Too bad we don't have any omniscient observers to just settle the debate for us, eh?)

I believe we are at that point in our debate at Talk:Morality. The community consensus is clearly in support of the inclusive definition I have been arguing for, and since consensus determines content on Wikipedia, that is the version that should be currently in the article. I will gladly keep responding to you so long as you want to keep arguing the point on the talk page, and who knows, maybe someday you will convincingly argue your point and sway consensus around to your side. But I strongly recommend that you back down about the revert-warring; since there are many other editors arrayed against your preferred version, you will fall afoul of WP:3RR before any of us do, and nobody wants that. Since you seem to feel that we all should be comfortable having a version we disagree with as the current version while we try to convince you otherwise, surely you should feel comfortable having a version you disagree with as the current version while you continue to try to convince us otherwise?

--Pfhorrest (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, I do not have time today, so really short: It is not me who is proposing changes, but everybody else. The change proposed is unsound, which is shown by all the sources presented, which is why the last uncontended version is correct. Please, bear with me and replace the last uncontended version for now. I will elaborate later. Apart from that I woud like to say that the things I am taking down here are not of my own hand. The things that are of my own hand would make you think I had lost it, for it is too far out of your own frame of reference. However, frames of reference are not a model for truth; quite the opposite actually. Please keep that in mind. --Faust (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorrest, I agree with you that a majority does not constitute truth. All we need to do is examine things until a satisfactory idea has come up. In just about all the cases I am of the opinion that you are not precise enough. I can understand an argument for generality in the basic explanations, but I think we should not be afraid of examining things to a decent level. The reason why things are said is important. Historical discussions can be easily misinterpreted, as you well know. Besides that it is not needed to argue about it too harshly. The article's can contain all ideas, as long as proper sources are present.

@DJ:Please, pay attention to what is going on. I am not the one proposing changes, the sources used to support the changes are unsound and it is not me who is placing POV's as introductions....

--Faust (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I will be taking a trip the coming days, so please take your time to examine what I am saying. --Faust (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pfhorrest. You have new messages at Talk:Morality.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Pfhorrest. You have new messages at Stevertigo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Pfhorrest. You have new messages at Stevertigo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• As you are an editor who had participated here, could you please state/explain your level of "involvement" (if any)? I'd appreciate it if you could provide a response (or a copy of it) here. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with these kinds of proceedings; do you want me to state something here on my talk page, or over there at the ANI? Either way, how do you define "involvement", i.e. how would I measure my level of it? In plain speech, I can say that

• I have had civil and not particularly problematic content disputes with Stevertigo at Rights
• at his request I commented on the recent dispute about his edits at Human, mostly in a facilitation/mediation capacity (meaning those words in a purely informal sense, not in any formal procedural sense there may be here on Wikipedia)
• I started following the ANI when a link to it was posted at Talk:Human (which was on my watchlist after commenting there), and seeing what was, from my experience with Steve, a disproportionately negative response, weighed in with an account of my more neutral experiences with him.
• I've continued to watch what's happening around him (the ANI, ArbCom, and related things I've found linked from there) unfold out of mostly idle interest. I don't feel that I have much stake in the outcome of any of the proceedings; I am interesting in seeing a fair outcome on general principle, but whatever the outcome I don't think my life at wikipedia will be affected much.
• Even if I did feel I had something at stake or some other reason to comment, I'm not sure how appropriate my commenting would be given my relative lack of involvement in the issue so far, or what the appropriate way to make further comments would be.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorrest!

I'm a comparative newby and not feeling all that confident of my editing abilities at this point - but figured I would mention something from the metacognition entry, as I tripped across it while reading earlier tonight.

The current article cites a J.H. Flavell for first using the word, but it seems to me that the chapter in the google book I link below used it about a decade before Flavell did: http://books.google.com/books?id=j1WS_iSiSUgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:j1WS_iSiSUgC#v=onepage&q=meta&f=false

Would you mind confirming that I have half a clue, and if I do, updating the page?

Thanks!

joshshaine@netzero.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.230.118 (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As it stands, the Freedom (philosophy) redirect is still sending about a hundred links to the disambig. All these links need to be pointed to an article instead of the disambig. No one at the WP:DPL project has tackled it yet because we're uncomfortable with guessing which meaning was intended. Since you decided to make this redirect go to the disambig, and seem to be a specialist in this area, could you help out? WP:AWB makes the job easier, but you have to get approved to use it; Navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true is also very helpful (and doesn't require approval). Thanks. --JaGa^talk 09:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for not responding last time, was in the middle of some hectic stuff and then overlooked this. I'll try to give it a shot by the end of this week. Thanks for the links to AWB and Popups, I'll give them a look. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I've not forgotten this. Started a new job last week, then got sick-- derailed my intentions. I'll try to address it this week. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. It's very appreciated, because this is a really tough one that needs expert attention. --JaGa^talk 11:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, same thing happened to me when I took my last consulting gig. I think stress lowers your immune system. A lot. Take care! --JaGa^talk 01:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorrest, thanks for integrating my text on this article with the previous version, and for the other changes. It's clear that you care about this topic, so I've put a note on the Discussion page which I hope clarifies what I was trying to do with it. Best, Walkinxyz (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pfhorrest, there's another rambling post about this topic in the discussion page. But I think if you see my point about "recognition" coming from a normative, rather than empirical standpoint, everything will make sense to you. Persons have to be recognized as such, if they meet the criteria of personhood. And what recognition means is inclusion in the franchise of personhood (not just in a "set" of plural persons). Helps a little?

Thanks for your patience. Walkinxyz (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walkinxyz,

Just so you know, you don't need to notify me here when you make a response. I've got Talk:Person on my watchlist and check it daily, so I'll see your response in my regular rounds.

Thanks. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pfhorrest. You have new messages at TyrS's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 TyrS  chatties  08:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article intro is still too hard to read. The problem is that you majored in this topic. Please consider that many of the people who want to read about it are amateurs at philosophy. Please write for others as much as for yourself.

Regards, KeithCu (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An objective relativism would be one with an objective independent variable. Robert Nozick's space-time truth value relativism seems like an example of this. Warm Worm (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just randomly realised who you were. Thought I'd pop by to shake hands with someone who did a lot of good for Myth, via your venerable website :). I came along to Myth a little after your involvement would have stopped (mostly), but y'as still a dude. (Chill (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding this, I'm afraid it's insufficient. Protecting the article requires administrator attention, but as I happen to agree with you, the article is now semi-protected for another months. Favonian (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	For being unwaveringly productive Tesseract2(talk) 03:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is my first Barnstar :-D I will display it proudly on my main user page. --Pfhorrest (talk)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Philosophy for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) and Mabeenot (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pfhorrest. You have new messages at Portal_talk:Human_rights#Logo.
Message added 12:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There was a question about Person and Personhood having the same information. I was simply moving all the Personhood information to that page. USchick (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are making some very controversial changes to a sensitive article. I am writing a reply to you on Talk:Person, please wait for me to finish before making any other changes. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to create waves. I'm happy to leave it for now. USchick (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can fully understand your feeling about "majority" not being the right word. I however don't quite think that advantaged is either. Not that advantaged people don't get discriminated against. Using the word advantaged to refer to someone being discrimated against just dosn't feel right in my opinion-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please make this comment on Talk:Discrimination instead. Other editors aren't going to be looking at my user talk page for responses to my comment there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally a large number of opinions based on policies and guidelines. In the case of Talk:People (disambiguation)#Requested move, there was no support for your changes to the people article which would have been deleted by your proposal. If you think that this is the correct move and can gain consensus, you need to request that as a multi article move before you decide on the outcome by changing the article to effective delete the existing content. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per you post on project philosophy, Please let me know on my talk page if you need help avoiding an edit war reverting changes that are unsupported by sources or violate WP:Undue. My wathclist is too full for me to be responsive by just adding the free will to it, so I might not know if you need assistance otherwise. :) PPdd (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is an RfC concerning the Eidos page in which you have shown interest in the past. This is a small notification in case you may wish to take part in the discussion. Salvidrim! 20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hello, Pfhorrest!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Bungie gnop splash marathon trilogy cd.png. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bungie gnop splash marathon trilogy cd.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bungie gnop splash marathon trilogy cd.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I respect the lengths to which you're going in order to treat Syamsu civilly. Garamond Lethe (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Moral relativism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moral objectivism (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) 10:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record if anybody is watching: this was intentional, as there are several successively narrower senses of "moral objectivism", any of which may apply in the context used there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Forrest, although you have expertise in the field of ethics I would like to ask you: Have you ever heard the Pope denouncing the meta-ethical relativism of our age? You have not. Perhaps because this sounds rather technical, outside of the mileu of professional philosophy, journalists, commentators and broadcasters use the expression 'moral relativism' instead. We do not hear Christian commentators displaying deep concern for our civilization's dangerous slide into 'meta-ethical relativism.' Have a look at the following: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4460673.stm or this http://www.moralrelativism.info/ or this http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+Relativism . So as you can see the claim that Moral relativism as it is conceived in popular discourse refers to the point of view that there is no absolute basis (or objective criteria) for judging the moral quality of human actions and therefore that morality is a subjective notion relative to culture, history and circumstance, is uncontroversial. The edit you are proposing contains accurate information but it does not cater to people looking for a concise definiton in both scholarly and lay terms. The Wikipedia manual of style states that the lead section "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable" and "be written in a clear, accessible style". Your introduction, since it does not address the layman, does not do this. Even if the 'plebs' don't know what they're talking about they need to be gently coaxed into the realm of the blessed 81.106.127.14 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to this at Talk:Moral relativism as that is the more appropriate venue for discussing the article content. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to work with you on the person article. Boethius's comment is nonetheless rather relevant to the concept of person, and should be included. -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Make a case on the talk page there and I'll respond. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Talk:Person#What_belongs_in_the_lede_here.3F - Stevertigo (t | c) 08:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at the person talk page. -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive responded at my talk page. -Stevertigo (t | c) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive commented at Talk:Time#Vague introduction sentence, Essential questions -Stevertigo (t | c) 17:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but I think now is the time to assert and dispel the notion that these POV pushers have that their default definition is a consensus definition. Their definition (that is the least supported by sources outside of experimental physics) really reflects POV. I am convinced that to be the most NPOV, the lede definition must be drawn from common and neutral sources and in the case of something as ubiquitous as time, that common and neutral source is the dictionary. Anyone who wants to push a lede definition that varies widely from the dictionaries is saying that they know better than the lexicographers. There are other articles (e.g. Marraige) that reflect this kinda I-know-better-than-the-dictionary bias in the lede. That is, in my opinion, the biggest shame of the Wikipedia project.

Please don't abandon Time to the POV pushers. Thanks. 71.169.190.154 (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hay Pfhorrest, this might interest you. User:Steve Quinn is pretty much saying that there is only one editor (some IP, wonder who?) who realizes that the lede there needs to be fixed. You might wanna check it out there at the ANI. 71.169.190.154 (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Re; your post on my talk: It ooks like its going in the right way - I'll refrain from getting involved again though. But thanks for notifying me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was the way you preferred to organize the talk page. I guess I misunderstood. Anyway, you organized this section quite well now. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. My understanding of how wiki talk pages are supposed to be organized is that a reply to another post should be indented one level deeper than it, and placed below any other comments directly in response to that comment; and that later posts which are not directly in response to the bottom thread but just new general comments should be un-indented back to whatever level they're replying to. What confused me about your indenting was that some comments were indented two levels deeper than the things they were responding to, and your response to Rick was indented as though it was a reply to my reply to JimWae. If you're fine with how it is now that's great, but I just thought I'd explain my confusion for your curiosity. Thanks. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Amorality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sapient (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) 04:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorrest, Regarding your edit [2]; I recognise that this text is redundant (especially for us people who understand about determinism), but it was not in actual fact an accidental restore. I have noted that at least one person was confused by its omission and even went as far as creating an edit to try and rectify what they thought was the problem [3]. It appears that they haven't interpreted "Determinism" as being relating to "rigid natural laws". I can see why this is the case, especially given the more detailed explanation provided for Compatibilism after, including its mention of "physical constraints". I made a note of this problem on Talk [4] - "On another issue, Pfhorrest...". I highly suggest restoring the definition of determinism for clarity. Please confirm (or perhaps you have an alternate solution?) - also feel free to comment on the general Clean-up edit. Thanks for your time - Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be particular on this, but I believe this modification is insufficient (it relates to one of the "loop holes" from a previous edit): "which holds that all future events are already fixed, be it by the workings of rigid natural laws or divine predestination"; the idea that all future events are fixed is not compatible with nomological determinism, as nomological determinism does not comment on the existence of future events. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should be having this conversation on the article talk page but I'm too tired to sort things out right now... but I don't follow what you're saying here at all. Nomological determinism says that the entire future, everything that will be and everything that will happen, is strictly entailed by the past and the laws of nature. How is that not commenting on the existence of future events?

What I was trying to do by phrasing things the way I did is give a simple statement of "determinism" of the sort that incompatibilists are concerned about, which includes both nomological determinism and theological determinism as well as logical determinism etc; anything which says that everything that will ever happen is already set in stone, and will be that way and not any other way, regardless of what means things are thus set in stone (impersonal laws of nature, a personal god predestining things, whatever). As opposed to things like "biological determinism", which doesn't say anything about whether all future events are set in stone already or not, it just says that the only influence on certain types of phenomena (e.g. human decision-making) is another specific type of phenomenon (e.g. genetics), to the exclusion of other phenomena (e.g. cultural conditioning). That seems to have been Brews' confusion which set all this qualified-determinism business in motion: he was thinking of unqualified "determinism" as including those sorts of things, when those sorts of things aren't what incompatibilists are really concerned about at all. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pfhorrest, I should have picked up on anomaly from your definition on the Talk page when I read it: it is only really a wording issue. Perhaps it should be more like; "Any given future event is product of X". I think that it is important we come to some way of defining this class of Determinism also, as I have run into this problem at the moment in section Hard Determinism. I will make further comments on the article talk page,[5] and thanks again for your feedback - I was in a hurry with my last post here. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm signing out and wanted to thank you for explaining succinctly what I could not. As a going away present I am giving you automatic support for anything you ever vote on. A vote with 2x power just might come in handy some day. If you ever need to prove it to someone, just use my userpage. xkcdreader comment added 21:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the usage of physical determinism, I have posted a request for comment. Brews ohare (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC concerning addition of a subsection to Philosophy can be found at this location. Please comment upon its inclusion and any modifications you think would help make it better. Brews ohare (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is proposed to start a page to replace the present redirect from Deflationism to Deflationary theory of truth. An RfC can be found on its talk page at Deflationism. Please make comments and provide suggestions for improvement. Brews ohare (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was a lot of work to fix the natural rights page, so I would be disingenuous if I said it was not a big deal. I posted on the talk page why I did it, but I suspect no one will respond to it. We'll see. Eodcarl (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just writing to you about that and apparently we were writing to the talk page at the same time, so my comment is now reframed as a response to yours. I'm sorry you must be frustrated to have so many changes undone, but I hope you will respect WP:BRD and not try to redo all of your changes without building a consensus first. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All your reverts are inappropriate. I did the right thing by taking it to the talk page and no offered a reason for the articles to be combined. There is nothing POV about the articles being separate, so you misused that principle to undo all my work. Eodcarl (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I accept it. Please help me get the POV wording regarding the relative controversy changed. Eodcarl (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For spending so much time explaining that dilemma

You have far more patience than I do and you more than deserve this! ----Snowded ^TALK 20:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Four temperaments - 3.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Blurred Lines 20:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorrest: I see you are back editing again, but haven't approached Dilemma of determinism. I'd like to propose that you examine this draft for the article (only a vehicle for discussion) and engage on its Talk page to decide whether anything there is acceptable to you for inclusion in Dilemma of determinism. Hope you will do that. Brews ohare (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brews. Sorry it's been so long since I've spoken up at Talk:Dilemma of determinism. I never stopped editing Wikipedia entirely -- I still watch my watchlist for vandalism/etc and fix minor things in articles I happen to be reading -- I just had to quit that particular debate for a while because I'm very emotionally and mentally taxed by some real-life stuff right now and need to pick what things are worth devoting my energy to, and the issues at that article are big and tiring to think about. You do deserve a response and I will get back to one as soon as I have the emotional fortitude to commit to it. Things are starting to look up a little bit at the end of this week, and I'm expecting a fun relaxing weekend coming up, so maybe with luck I'll have the strength to come back after that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and best of luck straightening out your real life. Brews ohare (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent interest having waned, I want to draw your attention to a RfC proposal to split off the 'standard argument' as a new, separate article. You have expressed the view that such an article would constitute a WP:Cfork of 'Dilemma', but I believe there is sufficient material that is peculiar to the 'standard argument' to warrant a separate article. This is particularly relevant as even a very brief presentation of the 'standard argument' in the article 'Dilemma' has been placed off-limits for an introduction to this syllogism. The syllogism is different from the 'Dilemma' inasmuch as it contains three premises and a conclusion,while the 'Dilemma' focuses upon the two 'horns' composing only two of these premises. If you prefer, you might comment upon the proposed article on its Talk page.

Thank you for your interest in this matter, which appears to have attracted virtually no attention from anybody else during its history that began in 2009, the exception being Snowded, who simply will not engage in substantive examination or constructive comment. Brews ohare (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vesal has suggested that instead of two articles, the article be moved back to Standard argument against free will. Inasmuch as the syllogism called the 'standard argument' has three premises and a conclusion, while the 'dilemma' focuses upon only two of the premises (the two so-called 'horns' of the dilemma), which directs attention away from the more significant third premise (either determinism or indeterminism is true), this shift in title would seem appropriate provided the content is changed to make the 'dilemma' a sub-section of the main article that focuses primarily upon only a portion of the 'standard argument'.

Perhaps the 'dilemma' is really not about the 'horns' after all, despite Fischer's and Russell's formulations along these lines? Brews ohare (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we will change the article to cover all possible dictionary definitions of "moral obligation", so we are dealing right now with purely autobiographical objections.

Is tutoring other editors a moral obligation? ;)

Seriously, I cannot think of any way to express these ideas more clearly than you have already done, so if you fail to enlighten, I don't know — what else is there to say? Vesal (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just having someone else publicly say that would be helpful enough. I can't politely say "I have explained this well enough, go back and read it again until you understand", but others can say something to that same effect without seeming nearly as rude as it would be if I did, and it would spare me from having to write another doctoral thesis about it or else saying nothing. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been more patient than most! ----Snowded ^TALK 17:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pfhorrest: I gather your patience is at an end on moral responsibility. Because the lead sentence has had a lot of discussion, I was prepared to move on. But I found the reference to an ascriptive role that was something new and seemed to fit better than the idea of 'status', so I put it in. The other changes I made were not discussed before, and I don't think out-of-hand reversion without comment is warranted, extending even to reverting 'main' article templates and reverting a return to WP's standard format of capitalizing only the first letter of a header. It is hard to believe you are satisfied with this poorly written and fragmentary article, so revision is needed. Perhaps you agree? I already commented on an outline you presented yourself, but drew no interest from you, so I proceeded to make a few segues to tie some of the pieces together. That did not provoke discussion, but only (apparently) provoked. Brews ohare (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much appreciate your comments upon the formulation of the issue found here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken further pains to express this version of 'moral responsibility' more carefully. I think the section Reactions expresses your own view of the matter. I would like to know whether you agree with that assessment. Regards. Brews ohare (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the quotes in your "Reactions" section are accurate statements of what is meant by the phrase "moral responsibility" in all uses of it I am familiar with, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia's definition that "to be morally responsible for something, say an action, is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction". I do not think it is appropriate for that definition to be relegated to a subsection instead of just defining the article that was as the main article currently does, or to opine in the article's own voice about why such a definition is unsatisfying.

On which note, I want to address your "itch" analogy. Say we were in an era before any modern medical science. How do you think people in such a time would define an "itch"? Describe the sensation. It's a kind of... discomfort, a pain maybe. How does it differ from other kinds? Mind you we can't go talking about different types of nerves or parts of the brain involved, that's all a mystery to us back in these dark ages -- and that kind of medical science would still only explain what causes an itch, it still wouldn't describe what an itch is, because the itch is an experiential phenomenon, it's a kind of feeling, and understanding the mechanism that causes such feelings doesn't make you yourself familiar with what that kind of feeling feels like. So we're still asking, what is the feeling of itching? What is it to itch? And at the end of the day beyond some vague classification of itching as a kind of discomfort or pain, it seems like an itch is something that compels you to scratch it.

Heck, out of curiosity I just googled "itch" to see how people do define it, and the first result is our Wikipedia page about it, which begins "Itch (Latin: pruritus) is a sensation that causes the desire or reflex to scratch."

Itches still don't make a great analogy for moral responsibility in many other ways, but I wanted to point out that the analogy even fails on the point you're trying to compare them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with your comment "to opine in the article's own voice about why such a definition is unsatisfying". A sourced comment would be more appropriate. The 'itch' analogy would then disappear. I am not satisfied with it myself. I was trying to find something vivid as an analogy, but the analogy doesn't capture the problems with defining morality as something that causes a moral reaction. (You might notice that the Stanford piece doesn't think that a moral reaction is easily defined, suggesting "a particular kind of reaction — praise, blame, or something akin to these". Obviously, praise and blame are attached to many other kinds of things that have nothing to do with 'moral responsibility'.)

As Double has pointed out, a lot goes under the rubric of 'moral responsibility' and he thinks the visceral reaction is part of it. I'm inclined to see that reaction as an aspect of social enforcement of 'moral responsibility', and the ascription of this responsibility (described by Hart) as the more bloodless and less visceral formalization of the idea that can be used to describe it more clinically as done in anthropology, for instance.

This viewpoint can be found in R Jay Wallace, who divides his book into "two main parts". "One is an account of what it is to hold people morally responsible, in terms of the moral sentiments. The other is an account of the conditions of moral agency, in terms of the rational power to grasp moral reasons and to control one's behavior in the light of them."

Could you comment further upon this article, for example, on the other subsections? I appreciate your willingness to discuss it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied these remarks to the proposal's Talk page. Further comment could be placed there to avoid clutter on your own Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added Wallace to the article, and removed the 'itch' analogy. Brews ohare (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a See also list that has some food for thought. Brews ohare (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these changes indicate to you my willingness to respond to your suggestions. The present article Moral responsibility is, I think you will agree (based even on your own outline), inadequate. A framework that is more general than one based upon free will allows for a less channeled, more wide-ranging discussion. The proposal suggests some headers for various topics under 'moral responsibility', but none of these subsections is complete, and many other sources could be presented. I am far from thinking that I've got all this complete or optimal. A collaborative venture could do much better. Brews ohare (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pfhorrrest: Have you decided any further activity with Moral responsibility is just too daunting? There are many ways to approach improvement, to be sure. But improvement is desirable, don't you think? Brews ohare (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine improvement of anything is always desirable, of course. But your proposals thus far have not on the whole seemed to improve, and I don't really see the problems that you point to in the current article that warrant such large changes to it. And while it's possible that there may be material from your proposed rewrite that would be fitting to include in the article and improve it, I just don't have the energy to compare them point-by-point on such a large scale all at once and ferret out where the improvements, if any, may be. I am very mentally exhausted lately and don't have the energy to take on large tasks that require careful thinking and social delicacy, as Wiki disputes do. I don't even have the energy to work on my own personal projects anymore.

If you suggested small changes, one at a time, on the main article's talk page, and they weren't just a rehashing of the same issues we've (all) already discussed ad nauseum and rejected, then maybe some of what your rewrite has to offer might slowly make its way into the article, but I don't want to fight about the same matters any more, and I can't take the time to find what if anything aside from those matters is different and better in your proposal. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pfhorrest: I am concerned over your present state of mind, which sounds awful, and hope for your early recovery. . If you have the energy to proceed piecemeal as you seem to think might be possible, I hope that might provide a little light on the gloom.

Perhaps we could look at the treament of individual philosophers, which is presently scattered through various topics. One area we have not discussed so far is Kant, perhaps as described by Smiley or by Williams. Another possibility is Hume.12. What do you say? Brews ohare (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal continues to evolve. I've removed some possibly contentious remarks and added sources. The 'moral sentiments' subsection expresses your views on the matter, which do not exhaust the subject, obviously. Perhaps you would comment further upon this subsection? It would be so much easier if you would participate. Brews ohare (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your whole approach in that proposal is still completely off the mark, so I don't really see a point in critiquing it point by point. You're just discussing various morality-related topics in general, and conflating a lot of different and unrelated things together. For instance, I don't see what moral sentiment or moral sense theory have to do with what you call "my views", especially as I am not a moral sense theorist or sentimentalist, and the views you quote there are not about emotional reactions at all, but about when certain kinds of condemning or approving responses are warranted or justified, as in, what is a good reason for such a response; nothing about emotion or sentiment there. Your "Dualism" section is especially a mess in this regards, somehow conflating dualism in philosophy of mind, with Kant's noumenal/phenomenal distinction, with the is-ought kind of distinction that divides science and morality, none of which have anything to do with each other, or with moral responsibility.

Let's think for a clarifying analogy about what an article on legal, rather than moral, responsibility, would discuss. It would not talk about the origin of law in general, or about which legal system is better than another, or whether or not any legal system is better than another. It would not talk about the distinctions between laws in a legal sense and scientific or physical laws. Those are all broad law-related topics which have nothing directly to do with the narrower subject of legal responsibility in particular. It would instead discuss things like the fact that children are (in many legal systems) not held as accountable for their actions as as adults are, in the sense that if a child and an adult commit the same crime, the child is less deserving (according to the law) of as severe a punishment as the adult would be. Likewise it would discuss how people who are lacking in certain kinds of mental faculties (the developmentally disabled or brain damaged, for example) are (again, in some legal systems) held to a similarly lower standard of accountability, and the same crime committed by such a person could warrant a lesser punishment. Similarly, otherwise mentally competent adults can be held to lesser standards of responsibility if they are temporarily overwhelmed and unable to exercise control of themselves, as in an insanity defense. Do you see the common theme here? The topic is about what kind of a person, in what circumstances, is accountable for anything at all, as in deserving of legal punishment for any crimes they might commit; without any discussion of what kinds of acts we're talking about punishing, what the punishment is, on what grounds the legal system claims authority to punish in the first place, or any of a number of much broader topics.

The subject matter of moral responsibility is similar, except we're concerned not with what kind of person in what circumstances is accountable according to law, but instead according to morality -- some system of morality, we don't have to quibble about which, just as we don't have to specify which legal jurisdiction we're talking about before we can discuss legal responsibility in general. The free will stuff is relevant there because it has to do with whether or not people have the right kind of mental capacity to be held accountable like that. All of those legal examples of diminished capacity above -- temporary insanity, brain damage, lack of development -- would be held up by many compatibilists are prime examples of when someone's free will was compromised or otherwise absent, and thus also examples of people with diminished moral responsibility. The incompatibilists meanwhile are concerned that if determinism is true, then everyone always lacks that right kind of mental capacity, free will, and thus nobody is ever morally responsible -- that punishment, reward, blame, praise, etc, are never deserved by anyone for anything. That's all within the common view that free will is a prerequisite to moral responsibility, of course; there are some who say it's not, and even if we have no free will, we can still be morally responsible, and then they give their accounts of what else is important to being morally responsible or not.

That's the kind of stuff the article needs to be talking about. Not about relativism or sentimentalism or whatever you're going for in that "dualism" section. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorrest: Your tone is a bit intemperate, I'd say. You may have a point that I'm wide of the mark, although that requires examination. I 'll copy your comments to the proposal Talk page for comment, where it won't clutter your Talk page. I hope you will follow up there. Brews ohare (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pfhorrest: You will find the beginning of your comments and a response here. I hope you can find the energy to reply. Thank you. Brews ohare (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to comment upon this RfC about moral responsibility. Brews ohare (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your participation on this RfC. Although you aren't very actively engaged, your remarks make me think and read further. Some of the results are seen in changes to the proposal and to my formulation of the topic, which continues to improve.

Sometimes there is trouble with Amazon's 'look inside' at Kutz I have found this feature a bit erratic. For example, yesterday entering Kutz in the search box produced his article, but today it produced zero results. Instead (as today's link shows) Christopher produced his article, but I was forced to sign in to see the results (I have bought things from Amazon, so I have an account with them.) Google also is erratic and what you can see today may be suppressed tomorrow. Brews ohare (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, dear Pfhorrest! You have a good point. Although then we should also change Materialism (disambiguation)... What do you think? --Againme (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Please do so. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation of constraints in the article free will has been commented upon. Inasmuch as this approach has been crafted by yourself, it would be helpful if you could comment. Thank you, Pfhorrest. Brews ohare (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 12.234.39.130 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are still monitoring the ANI case. However I have just posted a [edia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Moving_forward link to a suggested way forward] on one article in the hope of breaking what is an entrained pattern that is getting stressful for all involved. I admit to loosing my cool a few times in the last few months. If you have the time/energy your comments would be appreciated. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorrest,

I thought it was an original idea of my own - I think ethics is best broken down into meta-ethics and applied ethics. Meta-ethical views can be made into a hierarchy that starts with the opposing views of cognitivism and non-cognitivism. Within cognitivism there are theories (divine command theory, ideal observer theory, error theory, virtue ethics, deontology, utilitarianism,...) and within non-cognitivism there are theories (emotivism, quasi-realism,...). On Wikipedia's Meta-ethics article, I think the "substantial theories" and the "justification theories" are unnecessary and are over-complicating ethics. I think all of the views in the substantial theories and the justification theories are already covered in my proposed simplified hierarchy that just starts with cognitivism and non-cognitivism.

Thanks, Mike2085 (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help sort out Accidentalism if you get a chance? Thanks.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Accidentalism (philosophy), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.thefullwiki.org/Accidentalism.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorrest; Appreciate your looking at Moral realism, which benefits from editors looking at it. Your dropping the dictionary definition still has me thinking that there may be a better way to start the article for a subject which has such a long history of philosophical study and development. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please make specific edits rather than continuing to do wholesale reversions? Thanks! Scott Illini (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Since I was already working on an article called Legal awareness, I wanted to work on a related concept called Legal socialization, I came across another wikipedia article Socialization and frankly I am confused whether Legal socialization needs to be covered under Socialization heading or is altogether a different subject ? I would apreciate your openion in this respect.

Thanks and Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brews does appear to be responding to the suggestion that he discusses things topic by topic on the talk page - that is to be encouraged. Are you OK to engage? ----Snowded ^TALK 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can give it a try. Thank you for your help! --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same as last time - he is now inserting changes on guidance articles as he did last time to try and win an argument. I really don't have the energy for another prolonged set of reverts and interminable arguments. My gut feel is to take it to ANI now and see if the community is prepared to do anything. Thoughts? ----Snowded ^TALK 18:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am so completely fried from real life stuff I don't even have time to read the talk page now, and I've actually taken it off my watchlist for the time being because it's exacerbating my anxiety attacks. I support whatever action you think is prudent. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Health comes first and dealing with Brews is stressful at the best of times. I'll let you know if support is needed but try and avoid having to bother you. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the community is taking action ----Snowded ^TALK 06:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying a different approach on the Free Will article if you have the time to take a look? You know the field better than I and a cast over the proposal I have just made would be great. Apologies for the comment below - its a hang over from Unionist debates on Northern Ireland. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to discuss another editor like this (User: Brews ohare) on a talk page? I don't know all the Wiki rules. But it doesn't seem right to me....Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the time to read all the discussion on the free will talk page, but I want to record here a problem with the current lead. Perhaps, you could look into this when you have time. I think it misrepresents classical compatibilists to imply they believed the ability to make choices could be impeded by physical chains. Much rather, they have a deflationary view of will: all there is to acting freely is to be unobstructed. I believe the neutral term that encompasses all views on the distinction between acting and willing is either "to choose a course of action" (SEP) or "to act with free will" (IEP). What do you think?

I mean, I hope you see the problem: how on earth could choice-making be constrained by physical chains?? Unless they had neuronal nano-chains in 18th century Scotland... Vesal (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Peter Damian (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pfhorrest:

You might be interested to participate in this Request for Comment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being somewhat harsh. Possibly the reason was I had been picked up by a reviewer for the very same error. I had written ‘it fell into decline’ and the review scribbled ‘what??’. Actually I thought it was clear, 'it' referred back to 'a complex theory of signification and truth'. But the point was, it wasn't at all clear to the reviewer, who was quickly skimming through a reasonably long paper, and so the reviewer was right. We have a duty to our readers to make the prose as clear as possible – particularly on Wikipedia, which is a general reference work, not aimed at specialists. I hope that explains why I snapped. Peter Damian (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Right. Since you had some involvement with the Right redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Accidentalism (medicine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, would you be the Forrest from bungie.org? Red Rudy (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. Pfhorrest (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers then =D Red Rudy (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pfhorrest. 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]

Hello, Pfhorrest. 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]

You commented on the talk page for the article Bespoke. This article has been nominated for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke - for the reasons you mentioned. Perhaps you would want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke Senor Cuete (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pfhorrest. 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]

Hi Pfhorrest,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 03:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you. I've got WP:Anarchism on my watchlist already since I made that post there last night. Look forward to working alongside you on related topics in the future. :-) --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiǃ I'm sorry for having to this, but JLMadrigal continues to be POV-pushing and reject right-libertarianism, nor understanding it. See once again JLMadrigal saying "Since this use of the term "right" is at odds with common use - which typically implies nationalism, religiosity, and restrictions on personal liberties (which the ideology in question vehemently opposes) - it is inevitably confusing to the average reader. Thus a clear explanation of such nuanced usage is required early on". Then pushed edits that cremoved the right- prefix, but apparently didn't do the same for left-libertarians. JLMadrigal seems only concerned about that and doesn't moan about left-libertars and left-libertarianisn, clearly having a non-neutral view of it. Now JLMadrigal is again pushing this here. I'm honestly tired of having to repeat the same things. This is clearly based on "I don't like it" rather than what reliable sources say. I hope you can leave a comment there too that explain it better than I could.

P.S. I also feel slightly offended by JLMadrigal's comment that the discussion "has stalled due to two editors (one of which was recently banned from editing - no doubt for similar conduct)." I assume JLMadrigal is referring to us and I found that comment not in good faith nor good taste as well as outight lies like it "had been nearly settled" and comments about you and I, then again showing the clear bias and not understanding of anti-capitalist libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m away for the holiday weekend and won’t be able to address this until next week. Thanks for holding down the fort meanwhile. —Pfhorrest (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ryk72 ^talk 04:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about this. I did that because it appeared like left–
right. I don't know if you get the idea. About this, I wanted to ask you if you know what's the default Wikipedia zoom because I use 100%. I think it also change from computer to computer. On my old desktop, it was always 100%, but on my notebook to get the same, actual zoom I have to go to 125%.--Davide King (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Diligent work to improve Wikipedia. Polite, thoughtful dialog as we disagree North8000 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear abpout the big indirect whack from the virus sitation as you described. Here's hoping that it works out well soon. May the wind be at your back.....Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, maybe you are unaware of the policy at WP:REDLINK, but there is no need to use an edit to solely remove red links of plausible articles. Just because an article was deleted doesn't mean all red links should always be removed, just the contrary, it seems more likely that that article will exist after being deleted once or more, as the interest to create it is there and the sources are probably on the threshhold of acceptable. It just creates more work for everyone to need to add the WLs later if the article is created, and if it's not, then no harm is done anywhere by the links remaining red. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning, my eddits are minor and including links within wiki. Next time you revert my eddits you will receive a WP warning. As what you are doing is vandalism. Shenqijing (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the edit summaries, in which I give explanations for the changes, and also read WP:BRD, which explains how wikipedia editing happens -- you made a change, I reverted it, and then we should discuss it before you reinstate it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have included a link to the Chinese equivalent of morality. It is a small edit and we'll within the Wikimedia guidlines. Please do not change this without going to talk. or I will have to WP for vandalism. Thankyou Shenqijing (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just made a eddit to the page, just new, where do you think that the eddit will be more appropriate. And what is the best practices for the page for inclusion of eddit, thanks Sntmichael (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check it out, thanks75.82.19.242 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pfhorrest. I have just seen your user page. I haven't read all of it, but I agree with pretty well all of the opinions you express in the parts I have read. However, there is one thing there which I feel like commenting on, because it refers to something which I see so often, and which irritates me so much when I see it, namely your comment about "Use-mention confusion in the first sentence of ledes". I find it bewildering how many people can't understand that Germany refers to a country in Europe is nonsense, or, assuming that they mean "Germany" refers to a country in Europe, that it is true but not what is wanted in an article not about "Germany" but about Germany.

Of course, inability to distinguish between use of a term and mention of it is, as I have no doubt you know, by no means limited to Wikipedia leads, or even to Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know. JBW (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree. :-) --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]