==Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to the Wikipedia== Welcome, newcomer! Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience: * First, take a look at the Wikipedia:Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the Wikipedia:Test area. * When you have some free time, take a look at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. They can come in very handy! * Remember to use a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view! * If you need any Wikipedia:Help, feel free to post a question at the Wikipedia:Help desk * Explore, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, and, most importantly, have fun! Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time: *Wikipedia:Policy Library *Wikipedia:Utilities *Wikipedia:Cite your sources *Wikipedia:Verifiability *Wikipedia:Wikiquette *Wikipedia:Civility *Wikipedia:Conflict resolution *Wikipedia:Brilliant prose *Wikipedia:Pages needing attention *Wikipedia:Peer review *Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense *Wikipedia:Village pump *Wikipedia:Boilerplate text Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on User_talk:ClockworkTroll. You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~. Best of luck, and have fun! User:ClockworkTroll 16:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Nicomachean Ethics == I removed the “See also” link to Arete (virtue), because there was already a link in the text. Incidentally, your link was in fact to a disambiguation page; if you look at the code of my message, you'll see how to write the link so that it goes where you want, without messing up the text. Have fun! Μελ_Ετητης)">User:Mel Etitis 22:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Discussion== I need you to help me here and talk about Arete; please see Talk:Arete (virtue). Thanks.User:WHEELER 14:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Arete (excellence)== Yes, User White, and you Mel, and myself all agree on Arete (excellence) and I agree to change the links. Is this alright?User:WHEELER 14:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) :That's fine with me. User:WhiteC 20:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Need help== Two articles are up for deletion: one is specific for Classical studies, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vanavsos and the other is Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Family/State_paradigm. Can I ask for you help in these matters. Thanks.User:WHEELER 15:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I seem to be too late in the last case, though the article looks alright to me. User:WhiteC 21:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) My response to your change of heart. :I can't believe what I am hearing! We are in the midst of building an encyclopaedia. Either I am charged with original research because i put the bare bones out and other Wikipedians charge me alone with having to write a complete and thorough article at the onset or now, they want to delete because, I WHEELER, haven't had the time and the knowhow to put other articles on the encyclopaedia to mesh with vanavsos which is now the supposition and reasoning of WhiteC. This is absolutely outrageous! I am benumbed with consternation at all these floating reasons that have no bearing on the essence of the question! These people don't charge others with "these crimes" only myself and create "rules" that I must abide by but noone else. By WhiteC's argument, "The article must be deleted because it is not linked to any other article's". To WhiteC, this illogicity is glaring, "How are we to build an encyclopaedia when others are going to delete articles because they are not connected to something else?" I am floored by the "reasonings" imagined in order to get this article deleted.User:WHEELER 18:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Usually when I write an article, I put in links to other articles with similar themes which are related. I suppose that if others disagree and delete the links, it would show that the article wasn't appreciated, regardless of any intrinsic merits it may have. ::YOU say that many people are not fully qualified to judge the intrinsic merit of your articles (at least I think that is what you were saying), and ask how it can be fairly judged given the very small number of qualified people. In the face of my not knowing the intrinsic merits of the article (I am not a classics expert, just someone who is currently editing a philosophy article related to classics), links from other articles are the [i]only[/i] fair way I know of to judge such things. If you know of another way, please let me know. ::I am truly sorry that I don't know enough about the subject to form a vote any other way here. If it was about virtue, or something related to Aristotle, then I would be able to argue from knowledge about the subject matter. So, if you want only qualified votes for your articles in future, that is what I would be qualified for. ::In answer to your last question, the article has (presumably--correct me if I'm wrong) been out there for a while, before someone decided it should be deleted. If not, then I would agree with you that this was very unfair. User:WhiteC 03:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) Sorry for the yelling. it is already connected to one page and I was going to connect it to the philosophy of mixed government that belonged to the deleted Classical definition of republic.User:WHEELER 16:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Check it out== We have an unmitigated disaster on our hands. Please check out republic. And I don't know what I am talking about.User:WHEELER 16:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I see you are arguing with some people on the discussion page, but it is a very long argument, with lots of bits. Which is the unmitigated disaster part? External links? The use of 'republic' when referring to ancient governments? Or potential deletion or merge with another article? User:WhiteC 04:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Polytonic Greek == Unfortunately I don't think there's a way to make polytonic Greek look easily legible in the Wiki source — a problem that's shared with a number of other languages — look at any article containing Cyrillic alphabet, not to mention Japanese writing system! But polytonic orthography, while redundant for Modern Greek, is essential when quoting the Ancient Greek forms. At least the fairly recent adoption of the Template:Polytonic makes the characters legible to the reader (even in MS Internet Explorer), and I'm very strongly in favour of the view that in Wikipedia the convenience of the reader should vastly outweigh the convenience of the editors! User:Ross Burgess 04:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Probably the easiest way to insert polytonic Greek characters is to copy and paste from an existing article. For example the article Polytonic orthography includes a table of upper and lower case characters with various diacritics. You can copy from the article itself rather than the edit page. User:Ross Burgess 13:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Please see my comment on User Talk:Ross Burgess#Polytonic Greek. --User:Macrakis 05:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Epistemology: Idealism == WhiteC - I'm confused by the change you made to the article epistemology. You changed this sentence: :Analytic statements (for example, mathematical truths), are known to be the case without reference to the external world, and these are taken to be exemplary knowledge statements. To this sentence: :Analytic statements (for example, mathematical truths), can be parts of systems without reference to the external world, and these are taken to be exemplary knowledge statements. I find the second more confusing and perhaps misleading, but I am only one person. Can you tell me what you were trying to do by making the change? Thanks! --User:Kzollman 00:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC) :Well, I found the first sentence to be confusing. What does it mean to say something is "known to be the case"? Does this mean it is "known to be true" or "defined as being true"?. I apologize if my edit wasn't very clear. I meant that pure mathematics (as opposed to applied mathematics) is only analytic because it doesn't refer to the outside world, and is therefore an isolated system (although idealists may disagree). :Perhaps I was taking the paragraph out of context. I forgot it was about the idealist POV. I have very little sympathy for idealism myself, but I wasn't trying to redefine it. User:WhiteC 06:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :: Me either, but the general claim of idealists, as I understand it, is that we can knowledge mathematical truths, and not that they are defined to be true. Perhaps refraising the first paragraph to say "known to be true" which (for most philosophers) is synonymous with "known to be the case" would solve for your concerns, no? Kant would say that euclidean geometry is true about the world and also known without experience and so I'm worried that your paragraph might mislead readers. Although, I'm inclined to agree with your characterization I think the first paragraph might be better. --User:Kzollman 07:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC) :::I agree with you that your original is better than mine. I think "known to be true" is clearer than "known to be the case", but apart from that, I have no problems with reverting it. Sorry for causing confusion there. User:WhiteC 07:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :::Alright, I changed it back w/ the phrase "held to be true". Sorry for any confusion I caused. User:WhiteC 23:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC) == Chaos theory and determinism == Proposed wording is sounding better and better (see most recent discussion) User:Vonkje 13:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I heard about Wikipedia from a Newsweek article, and decided to check it out. My interests include Philosophy, History of the World and Chess. My major contributions so far have been in philosophy, particularly Deterministic system (philosophy) and Nicomachean ethics. I correct spelling and grammar in articles that I browse, which is easier when I'm not concentrating on editing content (ie: I'm a nitpicker who makes mistakes himself). I also edit for clarity, and try to write clearly myself... but I try to get content out first and make it easy to understand later (sometimes only when I find out someone has misunderstood me).
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with WhiteC:
WhiteC
WhiteC
Whitecastle
Whitechapel
Whitechapel
Whitechapel,_London,_England
Whitechapel,_London,_England
Whitechapel_&_Bow_Railway
Whitechapel_Art_Gallery
Whitechapel_Bell_Foundry
Whitechapel_Gallery
Whitechapel_murders
Whitechapel_tube_station
Whitechocolatespaceegg
Whitechocolatespaceegg
WhiteChristmas.ogg
Whitechurch
Whitechurch_Canonicorum
Whitechurch_Stouffville,_Ontario
Whiteclay,_NE
Whiteclay,_Nebraska
WhitecliffsDover.jpg
Whitecourt,_Alberta
Whitecourt-Ste._Anne
Whitecrest.jpg
Whitecross
Whitecross.jpg
Whitecrownedplovere71.jpg
WhiteCrownSparrow23.JPG
WhiteC
==Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to the Wikipedia== Welcome, newcomer! Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience: * First, take a look at the Wikipedia:Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the Wikipedia:Test area. * When you have some free time, take a look at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. They can come in very handy! * Remember to use a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view! * If you need any Wikipedia:Help, feel free to post a question at the Wikipedia:Help desk * Explore, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, and, most importantly, have fun! Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time: *Wikipedia:Policy Library *Wikipedia:Utilities *Wikipedia:Cite your sources *Wikipedia:Verifiability *Wikipedia:Wikiquette *Wikipedia:Civility *Wikipedia:Conflict resolution *Wikipedia:Brilliant prose *Wikipedia:Pages needing attention *Wikipedia:Peer review *Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense *Wikipedia:Village pump *Wikipedia:Boilerplate text Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on User_talk:ClockworkTroll. You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~. Best of luck, and have fun! User:ClockworkTroll 16:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Nicomachean Ethics == I removed the “See also” link to Arete (virtue), because there was already a link in the text. Incidentally, your link was in fact to a disambiguation page; if you look at the code of my message, you'll see how to write the link so that it goes where you want, without messing up the text. Have fun! Μελ_Ετητης)">User:Mel Etitis 22:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Discussion== I need you to help me here and talk about Arete; please see Talk:Arete (virtue). Thanks.User:WHEELER 14:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Arete (excellence)== Yes, User White, and you Mel, and myself all agree on Arete (excellence) and I agree to change the links. Is this alright?User:WHEELER 14:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) :That's fine with me. User:WhiteC 20:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Need help== Two articles are up for deletion: one is specific for Classical studies, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vanavsos and the other is Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Family/State_paradigm. Can I ask for you help in these matters. Thanks.User:WHEELER 15:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I seem to be too late in the last case, though the article looks alright to me. User:WhiteC 21:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) My response to your change of heart. :I can't believe what I am hearing! We are in the midst of building an encyclopaedia. Either I am charged with original research because i put the bare bones out and other Wikipedians charge me alone with having to write a complete and thorough article at the onset or now, they want to delete because, I WHEELER, haven't had the time and the knowhow to put other articles on the encyclopaedia to mesh with vanavsos which is now the supposition and reasoning of WhiteC. This is absolutely outrageous! I am benumbed with consternation at all these floating reasons that have no bearing on the essence of the question! These people don't charge others with "these crimes" only myself and create "rules" that I must abide by but noone else. By WhiteC's argument, "The article must be deleted because it is not linked to any other article's". To WhiteC, this illogicity is glaring, "How are we to build an encyclopaedia when others are going to delete articles because they are not connected to something else?" I am floored by the "reasonings" imagined in order to get this article deleted.User:WHEELER 18:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Usually when I write an article, I put in links to other articles with similar themes which are related. I suppose that if others disagree and delete the links, it would show that the article wasn't appreciated, regardless of any intrinsic merits it may have. ::YOU say that many people are not fully qualified to judge the intrinsic merit of your articles (at least I think that is what you were saying), and ask how it can be fairly judged given the very small number of qualified people. In the face of my not knowing the intrinsic merits of the article (I am not a classics expert, just someone who is currently editing a philosophy article related to classics), links from other articles are the [i]only[/i] fair way I know of to judge such things. If you know of another way, please let me know. ::I am truly sorry that I don't know enough about the subject to form a vote any other way here. If it was about virtue, or something related to Aristotle, then I would be able to argue from knowledge about the subject matter. So, if you want only qualified votes for your articles in future, that is what I would be qualified for. ::In answer to your last question, the article has (presumably--correct me if I'm wrong) been out there for a while, before someone decided it should be deleted. If not, then I would agree with you that this was very unfair. User:WhiteC 03:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) Sorry for the yelling. it is already connected to one page and I was going to connect it to the philosophy of mixed government that belonged to the deleted Classical definition of republic.User:WHEELER 16:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Check it out== We have an unmitigated disaster on our hands. Please check out republic. And I don't know what I am talking about.User:WHEELER 16:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I see you are arguing with some people on the discussion page, but it is a very long argument, with lots of bits. Which is the unmitigated disaster part? External links? The use of 'republic' when referring to ancient governments? Or potential deletion or merge with another article? User:WhiteC 04:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Polytonic Greek == Unfortunately I don't think there's a way to make polytonic Greek look easily legible in the Wiki source — a problem that's shared with a number of other languages — look at any article containing Cyrillic alphabet, not to mention Japanese writing system! But polytonic orthography, while redundant for Modern Greek, is essential when quoting the Ancient Greek forms. At least the fairly recent adoption of the Template:Polytonic makes the characters legible to the reader (even in MS Internet Explorer), and I'm very strongly in favour of the view that in Wikipedia the convenience of the reader should vastly outweigh the convenience of the editors! User:Ross Burgess 04:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Probably the easiest way to insert polytonic Greek characters is to copy and paste from an existing article. For example the article Polytonic orthography includes a table of upper and lower case characters with various diacritics. You can copy from the article itself rather than the edit page. User:Ross Burgess 13:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Please see my comment on User Talk:Ross Burgess#Polytonic Greek. --User:Macrakis 05:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Epistemology: Idealism == WhiteC - I'm confused by the change you made to the article epistemology. You changed this sentence: :Analytic statements (for example, mathematical truths), are known to be the case without reference to the external world, and these are taken to be exemplary knowledge statements. To this sentence: :Analytic statements (for example, mathematical truths), can be parts of systems without reference to the external world, and these are taken to be exemplary knowledge statements. I find the second more confusing and perhaps misleading, but I am only one person. Can you tell me what you were trying to do by making the change? Thanks! --User:Kzollman 00:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC) :Well, I found the first sentence to be confusing. What does it mean to say something is "known to be the case"? Does this mean it is "known to be true" or "defined as being true"?. I apologize if my edit wasn't very clear. I meant that pure mathematics (as opposed to applied mathematics) is only analytic because it doesn't refer to the outside world, and is therefore an isolated system (although idealists may disagree). :Perhaps I was taking the paragraph out of context. I forgot it was about the idealist POV. I have very little sympathy for idealism myself, but I wasn't trying to redefine it. User:WhiteC 06:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :: Me either, but the general claim of idealists, as I understand it, is that we can knowledge mathematical truths, and not that they are defined to be true. Perhaps refraising the first paragraph to say "known to be true" which (for most philosophers) is synonymous with "known to be the case" would solve for your concerns, no? Kant would say that euclidean geometry is true about the world and also known without experience and so I'm worried that your paragraph might mislead readers. Although, I'm inclined to agree with your characterization I think the first paragraph might be better. --User:Kzollman 07:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC) :::I agree with you that your original is better than mine. I think "known to be true" is clearer than "known to be the case", but apart from that, I have no problems with reverting it. Sorry for causing confusion there. User:WhiteC 07:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :::Alright, I changed it back w/ the phrase "held to be true". Sorry for any confusion I caused. User:WhiteC 23:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC) == Chaos theory and determinism == Proposed wording is sounding better and better (see most recent discussion) User:Vonkje 13:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
WhiteC
Hello. I heard about Wikipedia from a Newsweek article, and decided to check it out. My interests include Philosophy, History of the World and Chess. My major contributions so far have been in philosophy, particularly Deterministic system (philosophy) and Nicomachean ethics. I correct spelling and grammar in articles that I browse, which is easier when I'm not concentrating on editing content (ie: I'm a nitpicker who makes mistakes himself). I also edit for clarity, and try to write clearly myself... but I try to get content out first and make it easy to understand later (sometimes only when I find out someone has misunderstood me).
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
W
WA | WB | WC | WD | WE | WF | WG | WH | WI | WJ | WK | WL | WM | WN | WO | WP | WR | WS | WT | WU | WX | WY | WZ |Words begining with WhiteC:
WhiteC
WhiteC
Whitecastle
Whitechapel
Whitechapel
Whitechapel,_London,_England
Whitechapel,_London,_England
Whitechapel_&_Bow_Railway
Whitechapel_Art_Gallery
Whitechapel_Bell_Foundry
Whitechapel_Gallery
Whitechapel_murders
Whitechapel_tube_station
Whitechocolatespaceegg
Whitechocolatespaceegg
WhiteChristmas.ogg
Whitechurch
Whitechurch_Canonicorum
Whitechurch_Stouffville,_Ontario
Whiteclay,_NE
Whiteclay,_Nebraska
WhitecliffsDover.jpg
Whitecourt,_Alberta
Whitecourt-Ste._Anne
Whitecrest.jpg
Whitecross
Whitecross.jpg
Whitecrownedplovere71.jpg
WhiteCrownSparrow23.JPG
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
