User talk:Arnlodg

Welcome!

Hello, Arnlodg! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! DVdm (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

April 2014

Hello Arnlodg. Please note that P. D. Ouspensky's works are not reliable sources. I noticed that you also edit an IP editor (76.89.157.83). Please read WP:SOCK. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouspensky and IP editors, never again, thanks...Are you able to change the Involution (philosophy) oneself-itself contradiction , why not undo the oneself then, thanks
See wiktionary:oneself#Pronoun. An object is not a person. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then the problem is...the classification on the main page article for involution as (philosophy) should be changed to (philosophy of mind), or add to main page article a "classification" for (philosophy of mind)"...why...the referenced philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Henri Bergson were primarily philosophers about "human persons" and Bergson a Nobelist...involution of evolution is post modern philosophy,thanks Arnlodg (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)arnold— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.127.41 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the use of the term in philosophy in general. I just added a source that links the term with Bergson and Deleuze. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:SYNTH [1][2]. Please stop editing as an IP editor (76.171.127.41), stop signing your additions in the edit box. See also [3]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now learning to understand sandbox, thanksArnlodg (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Time, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please use the talk page Talk:Time to explain what this edit was about, and also please realise that open wikis are not considered to be wp:reliable sources for Wikipedia. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - For the same reason I also undid this edit in the article Observation. - DVdm (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Time. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. DVdm (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Thank you..Are you saying this second cite (neuroscience for kids-synesthesia...) was not a reliable source If so I will stop editing altogether and explore reference desk, Thanks[reply]

Information icon Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Observation for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC) I give up on Wikipeadea's work with Observation, thanks for all your time...[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self (June 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Arnlodg, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self (June 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Zach Vega (talk to me) 11:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self (June 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self (June 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Outline of thought may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[history of evolution

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Outline of thought, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Body, Sensation and Involution (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) 08:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Faizan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Outline of thought, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Faizan 19:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Property (Observation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Property (Observation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Thought. - DVdm (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self (July 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self

Draft:Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALKNO

Please stop using talk-pages as forums as you did in Talk:Thought, Talk:Knowledge and Talk:Declarative memory. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Please stop your unconstructive editing. [4][5] Wikipedia is not the place to host your essay-like commentaries. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arnlodg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Aparently Decontruction has been my point of view and the presumption that Talk pages would would affirm or deny edits in progressions of thought...Wikipedia has a host of questions about Deconstruction...these questions should Reference the Ways of Yoga, Monks and Fakirs-and modern interpretations of those Ways (not easy) Thank you...(talk) 00:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The garmine was:
This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
The garmine (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Arnlodg/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, User:Arnlodg/sandbox, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Practice and ways (June 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The garmine was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
The garmine (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Practice and ways (June 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joe Decker was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Articles need to be based on references to multiple, reliable, independent sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
joe deckertalk 14:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retired or not? Continued pattern of violation of WP:NOTFORUM

I see that admin Doug Weller placed a {{retired}} template on your user page and unblocked you quite a while ago. If you intend to edit Wikipedia again, I suggest you get rid of that template to avoid confusion.

Unfortunately, some of the edits you have been making recently, such as those at Talk:Knowledge and Talk:Western esotericism, appear to be a continuation of the pattern of attempting to use talk pages as an opinion forum. I've removed the sections you added and am warning you that if you continue this sort of disruptive editing, you may be blocked. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Doug was right, I am retired, never again, thanks, Arnold

Your draft article, User:Arnlodg/Practice and ways

Hello, Arnlodg. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Practice and ways".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JustaZBguy (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You are making or proposing idiosyncratic edits over multiple articles without proper references. You are also not following conventions on indenting comments. Please stop and follow good practice - you've already been blocked for this type of behaviour and if it carries on I will put in a request at ANI for the ban to be reinstated -----Snowded TALK 07:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This set of edits is yet another illustration of the behaviour. -----Snowded TALK 06:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editor 'Chetnorvo' removed/reverted parts of my requests for change from the Articles in Observation Philosophy and Metaphysics. Thank you. I will indent from now on....l am making it my mission in life to find reliable sources and references, that can be approved by Wikipedia, thank you...Arnlodg (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with edits

Hi Arnlodg,

I'm not sure how to put this, but your edits aren't helpful. The problem isn't just references; it is, put bluntly, bad writing. It's great that you want to improve Wikipedia, but as it stands, you aren't doing so. I would suggest laying off and, if you absolutely must contribute, keeping things simple and readable. SnowFire (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had to waste time removing inappropriate additions of 'see also' over multiple articles and also revert you making changes to comments on a talk page to which other editors had already responded. I'm sure you are well intentioned but its only a matter of time (unless you change) before you're competence to edit here is questioned by community. -----Snowded TALK 04:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you just carry on! I'm on the verge of asking that your previous indefinite ban to be restored on the basis that you haven't learnt anything since you were reinstated. -----Snowded TALK 20:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No more see also edits; got it; thanksArnlodg (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they are relevant - feel free to check first-----Snowded TALK 22:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last warning - your competence to edit here is in question given what you just did on the self-awareness article. Just look at your talk page. Its a succession of rejected articles and warnings for using wikipedia as a forum for your idiosyncratic views. If you don't understand how wikipedia works ask for help - find a mentor and check your edits with them first, work in areas where you don't have strong opinions and there is no risk of original 'research'. There are options open to you please take them -----Snowded TALK 06:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I also noticed some edits and tried to understand them but am not sure what to make of it, unfortunately. I've not checked the background, but is Snowded your sponsor? If not, maybe it would be appropriate to find one to discuss those edits with before applying them... I otherwise anticipate a sad situation for the future like a topic ban or block if this persists. On the other hand I don't think I see obvious edit warring. It's more that most if not all edits need to be reverted... —PaleoNeonate – 22:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK - per the interaction with Doug on my talk page. If you want to continue editing the suggestion is that you are mentored. I'm happy to attempt that or you could seek someone else. -----Snowded TALK 07:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK- where/how do I ask you, if a paper I have found in PhilPapers, could be used as a citation; I found PhilPapers (to cite) because of your work, it seems to be popular modern research about philosophical and psychological attitudes towards self knowledge...Here we go, one step at a time, thanks.Arnlodg (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a link and tell me what edits you want to make with it -----Snowded TALK 18:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing ANY change in behaviour so far. I've had to revert every edit you've made and you haven't asked for advice BEFORE making any of them. -----Snowded TALK 05:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't seem to actually know how to contact you, to ask for advise--I've clicked on your name but that doesn't seem to lead anywhere, I will not edit anymore till I have learned how to contact you, OK. I am reading MediaWiki to see if it will help, thanks.Arnlodg (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can use my talk page - or post something here. I have your page on watch -----Snowded TALK 16:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Universe. Your recent edit to Universe, where you inserted the unsourced word "observation" into the lead, seems to be a continuation of the same behavior you were previously blocked for. Another example. Snowded, are you his mentor? jmcgnh? What should be done about this? --ChetvornoTALK 17:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried but he refused to talk with me before he edits. @Doug Weller: was previously involved -----Snowded TALK 07:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metaphysics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relationship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Initial condition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Attention

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Attention, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ---Snowded TALK 15:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to On Liberty has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Self, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reflexive, Objective and Object (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Gurdjieff, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Practitioner and Self-knowledge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On "being here now"

I respond to your reply on Talk:Mental state here since it would be off-topic there. It could be that you mean by "being here now" something akin to mindfulness or meditation. In that case: it is something that is associated more with eastern spirituality and less with philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.You've taken me back to the mid sixties, and in book stores then self knowledge was the hot topic of the day; one author seemed-couldn't take it any more and got published a book titled "Be or BE" with only blank pages for content...Does this kind of experience fit with mindfulness and meditation, to me it was just being alive and sorta the Socratic way of philosophy; that was over 50 years ago... .I am not a teacher but mindfulness, meditation, cognition, perception by themselves are impressions akin to inner living, which(I hazard our conversation), seem towards one's own self being here now...I'll be on the road for two weeks, If this conversation keeps going...it may be sporadicArnlodg (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]