Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:01, 7 September 2019

Catholic Church and deism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Catholic Church and deism. Since you had some involvement with the Catholic Church and deism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. GretLomborg (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:John Hunt Publishing logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:John Hunt Publishing logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

American Vegetarian Association

I would like to return the article on American Vegetarian Association. You seemed friendly to someone's doing that. Can you help>? I would take it back as a draft - either a public draft or a draft in my userspace. MaynardClark (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Think you need an administrator for that. I’m not one, but try WP:RFU? Hyperbolick (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page

Talk:Catholic_Church_and_deism#Speculative_possibility.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not offended if the Skelton subsection is too extreme.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC vote

See Talk:Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick#RfC_about_three_disputed_paragraphs if this interests you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Of interest, yes. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I mostly supported the position of PluniaZ over Display name 99, yet PluniaZ is more unhappy with me than Display name 99 is.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Deism search box

Feel free to weigh in here as to whether it should have a search box or not: User_talk:Epiphyllumlover#Search_boxes_on_templates.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply about source

I took a look at the source you asked me about on my talk page. While definitely it's better than a self-pub CreateSpace book, it's still a bit questionable: the author doesn't seem to be much of an established scholar and the book itself doesn't seem to have attracted much academic notice yet. It's also unclear to me on how it might actually be productively used in an article on pandeism, since it's seems to be mainly an argument against theism and not a discussion of pandeism itself. When the source discusses pandeism, it's often lumped in with other -isms (e.g. "as discussed throughout, pantheisms in general, pandeism included", "broad-minded pandeism, which, like all pantheisms", "deistic god concepts, including pandeism"). The gist of the treatment seems to be that pandeism is so vague, so "there are an infinite number of possible pandeisms", so a pandeism (or one of a pile of other vague -isms) can be invented to match whatever circumstances you'd like, so therefore it's "more probable." The premises seem a bit banal, and I don't think you can do probability on vague infinities like that to get to the conclusion. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No rule here discounts sources as "doesn't seem to have attracted much academic notice yet". As to "an infinite number of possible pandeisms", that's how theology works. Literally an infinite number of possible (read: not logically impossible) theisms, deisms, pantheisms, and every other formulation. So this as analysis of the source is lacking. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Lataster appears to be a high school, community college, or adjunct teacher/professor. His PhD seems legitimate. The book has the tone more of an activist than a scholar, and its language seems to be geared for a lower reading level than most philosophical works. However, it appears to follow the basic form of other philosophical works. It being listed by Springer may or may not entail much peer-review--there are pay-for sites that will accept your work with minimal review provided you have connections to a major institution, which he does. My opinion is it is unlikely this book will attract much academic notice in the future because it appears to be intended for a more popular rather than academic audience. As for using it on Misplaced Pages, editors routinely use news articles with similar or even worse dubious character, but I would rather not if there was another source that made the same argument somewhere else. A source like this one could probably not be used to determine notability, but might be used if need be. If there are objections to it, I would understand.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, will reflect on this perspective. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Image

FYI, I've asked a question to see if it's permissible to use a screenshot of a Google Books scan on Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure, but I think that Google may own the copyright to the image they created, even though the underlying work is public domain. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I've done it before. The answer for the U.S. is no, Google Books does not own the scan. Same is true for facsimile works, and even many old reproductions in art history books, assuming they were published or created earlier. However, Europe may differ, not sure.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:People associate with the Rockefeller Foundation has been nominated for discussion

Category:People associate with the Rockefeller Foundation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

pan + deism in google ngram viewer

pan + deism in google ngram viewer, also see -deism.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting set of views, my friend. Your take? Hyperbolick (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article on pandeism says the term is 18th century. I was looking to substantiate it. The first one with the plus--I'm not sure what to make of it, as the pan might be somewhere on the same book? But the the second one with the hyphen is probably a better bet. The 17th century references though might be worth looking into--1739 and 1755 are the years with the spikes. Or it might just be a typo or scanning error.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Found no specific earlier citations of Pandeism or Pan-Deism earlier than the 1787, a questionable one in itself. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

There is also the -ist form of the word: for the + search and the hyphen search.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Would like your thoughts as well as to the #Reply_about_source discussion above. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This is from 1737, but it is in Latin, and so is this one from 1768. Predating both of these is this use of the term from 1607.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The last one is in German, and it comes from 1 Samuel 24:11, it translates as "pandemonium".--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at these more closely:

Not sure any clearly discernible uses. First one, not sure if it's one word or two. Second one -- Pandectas? Third one -- Pandest? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Pandectas is the name of a set of legal works by Justinian, Pandest is a last name and I wonder if it is a form of the word pandectas, which could also refer to a set of legal works in general. Now I see that none of them are the word we are looking for.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:People associated with the Rockefeller Foundation has been nominated for discussion

Category:People associated with the Rockefeller Foundation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Corey S. Powell has been accepted

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

A friendly

pointer to WP:G4 and WP:SALT. ∯WBG 15:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Intend to propose moving article to draft if not kept. Dozens of sources haven't even been looked at. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 ∯WBG 21:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)