User talk:JessieHenshaw

August 2024

JLH entry The response entered on this page does not seem to be related to anything I wrote, as far as I can tell, or to a misunderstanding. Systems that expand by regularly doubling their scale and complexity, what 'growth' is, are unique. They cannot be sustained once their scale and complexity run into problems due to conflict with the systems around them and the internal need to adapt and reorganize for changing conditions too fast to coordinate.

unknown responder Why erase quite relevant corrections for the section on "Reserves"?

Of course, meaningful reserves are relative to demand, and rapid growth of lithium demand seems likely to be long term. Growing supplies of lithium will be needed to limit climate change for replacing fossil fuels for transportation, for balancing electrical grid loads for wind and solar generation, and other uses. Continuing long term exponential growth of lithium use would then also be expected, to serve the needs of continued economic growth.

March 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Lithium, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, JessieHenshaw. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Please don't write pages using your own youtube videos (or other publications) as references or links. Fram (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Phenomenology (general science and discourse) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phenomenology (general science and discourse) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phenomenology (general science and discourse) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not settled science, but it is well supported by observation once you ask the question, is there a difference between studying the physical designs of natural phenomena in context, given the huge difference between systems in context and abstract world plan to expand our use of the earth to infinity (by ever bigger steps forever), already in deep trouble. So, the small 'j' justification? The article seems to fill a critically important gap between formal abstract languages and reliable old languages for living in nature in context.

I'm just giving it recognition. I'd like it to stay up to see if anyone else sees how valuable it is to see our need to revive enough of our 50 thousand-year-old languages to avoid destroying the earth. The old language is actually more useful for understanding how systems behave under escalating pressure than the formal language. The latter do not even yet see that their solutions to the world climate and many other crises are actually accelerating their destructive effect ever faster.

Wikipedia isn't the place to give your own ideas recognition or exposure, see WP:OR. Only after ideas have been discussed in reliable, independent sources may they be acceptable for a Wikipedia article, and even then it shouldn't be written by someone closely involved with the subject. Fram (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, that's fine, but does it also apply to the Talk pages? This IS the place for discussion, isn't it" JessieHenshaw (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM. You are free to discuss reliable, independent sources which indicate that your description of phenomenology is a valid article topic: but talkpage discussion of your ideas or theories in themselves doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the aspect of phenomenology my page is reporting on is one where current "reliable, independent sources" diverged in a categorical way from the original ones. The question is, by Wikipecia rules, how should the article address that. Is it to just point out the questions it might raise for others?

I'm sure you've seen occasions where Wikipedia articlew fail to destinguish between the mental and material appearances and values of things. Arguably, the material designs and relationships of nature should be referenced for any discussion of the appearances to be well founded, but it's not Wikipedia's fault that the problem exists and is confusing for lots of people. It's also not Wikipedia's fault if many writers attempt to just erase by asserting the primacy of mental and social appearances and quite ignore the material ones. No, acknowledging that also does not solve the problem. JessieHenshaw (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JessieHenshaw (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC) The above is a reply to Fram. Please excuse some typos.[reply]

If no good sources apart from you discuss that "current "reliable, independent sources" diverged in a categorical way from the original ones." in a way similar to what you described, then Wikipedia is not the place for this, and it's not a question of "how should the article adress this" but "should this article exist under Wikipedia rules", which according to the AfD result is "no". Fram (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that's tricky, that the misuse of Greek is not verified by using the word 'phenomenology' to not refer to the study of phenomena, if the only authority is Greek. In Greek the 'phenomena' is the plural of 'phenomenon.'

Ref: www.etymonline.com › word › phenomenon (n.)

1570s, "a fact directly observed, a thing that appears or is perceived, an occurrence," especially a regular kind of fact observed on certain kinds of occasions, from Late Latin phænomenon, from Greek phainomenon "that which appears or is seen," noun use of neuter present participle of phainesthai "to appear," passive of phainein "bring to light, cause to appear, show" (from PIE root *bha- (1) "to shine"). Meaning "extraordinary occurrence" is recorded by 1771. In philosophy, "an appearance or immediate object of experience" (1788). The plural is phenomena.

I Google'd

A) In scientific philosophy, what are phenomena?

=> Phenomenon, in philosophy, any object, fact, or occurrence perceived or observed. In general, phenomena are the objects of the senses (e.g., sights and sounds) as contrasted with what is apprehended by the intellect.

[www.britannica.com › topic › phenomenon-philosophy - Phenomenon | Existence, Causality, Perception | Britannica]

and

=> plato.stanford.edu › entries › phenomenology

Phenomenology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Nov 16, 2003 · What is Phenomenology? Phenomenology is commonly understood in either of two ways: as a disciplinary field in philosophy, or as a movement in the history of philosophy.

Combining those => 'Phenomenology' is a Greek term for study of phenomena of either nature or the mind, for wich philosophers use the term to refer only to phenomena of the mind.

Does that satisfy you? I'm disambiguating the term, with the intent of adding to the general study of phenomena.

JessieHenshaw (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]