User talk:Richardbrucebaxter

Welcome!

Hello, Richardbrucebaxter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Andvd (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Andvd[reply]

File copyright problem with File:FreewillConceptsBasedUponPhilosophyOfMindCausationViews.svg

Thank you for uploading File:FreewillConceptsBasedUponPhilosophyOfMindCausationViews.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on images

I think it's great that you're working on Wikipedia's quality of Open Source images. There are many pages screaming for editors who like to create original diagrams, art, or graphs - and pages that would at least benefit from a picture from WikiCommons.

I do have one suggestion. The image "RetrospectiveConstructionTrials.png" is supposed to match the "RetrospectiveConstructionGraph.png". That is, I think it is helpful if the words describing the trial match the colour of the corresponding graph. For people who learn visually, this can be a very helpful clue. Maybe you could make the words "Participant failed to decide" yellow again?

Just a suggestion. Keep up the great work.-Tesseract²(talk) 17:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tesseract,

It is you who should be thanked - you have made some fundamental contributions to Wikipedia here.

I understand now - I was trying to avoid ambiguity (in that not all Decide Trials, marked by a yellow traffic light, correspond to 'Participant labels it Failed to Decide' - but this should be obvious). I have reverted the colour of the 'Failed to Decide' case.

Note I applied these changes to the JPG->PNG converted image source. If you still have the original image source (Photoshop format I presume?), you could reconvert the original source images directly to PNG to eliminate compression artefacts. As it stands however, there are very few artefacts, as they appear to have been saved to JPEG using a high quality setting.

Cheers,

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free will, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volition (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) 12:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free will, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exists (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) 11:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeterminismXFreeWill modifications

Hi Richard,

It just occurred to me that File:DeterminismXFreeWill.svg says specifically "physical determinism". The positions defined in it though are not defined with respect to physical determinism however (Descartes for examples was an incompatibilists who believed in physical, but not completely nomological, determinism), but to other varieties of determinism such as nomological, logical, or theological. Do you think you would mind editing the image to remove the word "physical" from the vertical-axis labels? Thanks! --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfhorrest, I explicitly included it here because the only form of determinism for which this classification system always holds is nomological determinism. For example, theological determinism commonly uses compatibilism/incompatibilism to refer to completely different conditions on free will (that a) contradict the classification system as applied for nomological determinism, and b) do not even assign all four categories). This follows from the fact that nomological/causal determinism (determined by external X) and theological/logical determinism (determined) are different in kind (and are even mutually exclusive: one can have nomological determinism without theological determinism, and vice versa). It is only when hard theological determinism is asserted that they start to become related to each other with respect to their implications for incompatibilist free will. I tried to bring this problem up at earlier at talk [1]. I notice you have removed the 'nomological determinism' qualifier in the introduction also: ie 'Free will is generally classified with respect to positions on nomological determinism... this determinism... etc'. I suggest we find a solution to this problem. Cheers - and thank you for looking after the free will article while I was away.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment at physical determinism

To get some other ideas, I have posted a request for comment. Brews ohare (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:DualismCausationViews.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DualismCausationViews.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neuroscience of free will, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medial (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) 08:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Math symbol parentheses (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Math symbol parentheses (disambiguation), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Math symbol fencedbrackets (disambiguation). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Math symbol i (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Math symbol i (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Unnecessary disambiguation. All found here.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. 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. BiH (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Math symbol cross (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Math symbol cross (disambiguation) 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/Math symbol cross (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Math symbol e (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Math symbol e (disambiguation) 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/Math symbol e (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Talk:Free will

As a past contributor to Free will, you might be interested to participate in this Request for Comment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Richardbrucebaxter. 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]

May 2017

Your recent editing history at Brittany Pettibone shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Grayfell (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding implied legal threats at Talk:Brittany Pettibone. The thread is BLP issues and implied legal threats at Talk:Brittany Pettibone. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Richardbrucebaxter. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Richardbrucebaxter. 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]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Generalrelative (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]