You're right: a tremendous value of an online encyclopedia is to the contributor, as it forces him to organize and understand what he is writing. A positive externality is the benefit to the readers also. Welcome and I look forward to learning from your contributions.--Aschlafly 12:01, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Greetings, thanks for your message. I'm sort of with you on the politics bit. Well I'm a conservative, and a Christian, but not that sort of conservative, nor that sort of Christian. But I felt there had to be an alternative to the occasionally outrageous bias of WP, plus I had an enormous bust-up there and have no plans to go back.
I'm not sure how to interpret the 14-18 year old bit. But since I was raised in the 'plain English' school, i.e. avoid technical terminology wherever possible, introduce and define technical terms in a clear and simple way, avoid long words where short ones will do, I'm sure my contributions will please. I liked your article on Thales. Do let me know of your plans for a philosophy project of some kind. The biggest weakness in Wikipedia I felt was the inability to grasp the three most important things (say) about a subject and then just say them, and no more.
Was a bit mystified about the plan to skip over Plato. Is that wise? I know a little bit about Aristotle (have just finished translating chapters 10-12 of book Zeta from William of Moerbeke's Latin, into English – don't ask why).
I wrote much of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_%28Aristotle%29 the Wikipedia article on the Metaphysics, though this drew some criticism, particularly the assertion that the theory of Forms is a synthesis of Heraclitus and Parmenides. Perhaps this was justified, but had no time to do further work on the article.
Looking forward to working with you, there is a lot to do! WilliamofOcham 09:04, 18 December 2007 (EST)
- Thanks for message! I see you belong to the school of thought that hops between user talk pages, rather than keep the thread in one place. Splendid. I have little expertise in Plato, and not much in Pre-Socratics. WilliamofOcham 11:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Thank you for the additional subcategories under Philosophy. I should point out, however, that we adhere to title case for our category titles. So Philosophical works should be Philosophical Works and Philosophical systems should be Philosophical Systems. If you could help us make these alterations to the articles you have reclassified it would be appreciated. Thanks Learn together 02:13, 23 December 2007 (EST)