Clean Copy
Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello Clean Copy, welcome to Wikipedia!
I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!
If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.
You might like some of these links and tips:
- some General guidance.
- Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
- Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
- Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
- Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
- Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
- Use the Show preview button
- Provide an Edit summary
- Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
- Take a look at Consensus of standards
- Create a User page
If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf melmac 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Is Anthroposophy a Science?
You emailed me with the following:-
- Over the last century, there has been serious debate over whether the 'social sciences', and especially psychology, can be considered sciences. The issue has been precisely the same as that for anthroposophy: can non-verifiable (because non-physical) events - and all psychological events qualify here - be the subject of a science?
- In both cases, proponents believe in the objective and independent reality of psychological or spiritual levels of reality, and in the possibility of approaching these with scientific methodology. Critics deny either or both of these. There are in fact strong analogies between the two situations. There are also obvious differences, of course, especially in terms of the relative acceptance of psychological ideas at this moment (in contrast to 50 or 100 years ago) and that of spiritual ideas. But merely because one situation is 50 - 100 years behind the other in terms of general acceptance is insufficient reason to deny the evident parallels.
- I will put the edits back in, with a note including the above. I hope this meets with your approval.
- H Gilbert
You are correct that many subjects in the areas of psychology and "social science" which once claimed to be sciences do not nowadays stand up to scrutiny and have given up such claims. Psychoanalysis and Marxism to name two. I believe Anthroposophy also would not pass the modern description of a science which comes down to it conducting a continuous attempts to criticise and disprove its current best theories. Lumos3 17:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
WikiProject: Alternative education
Hello, we are currently seeking additional participation in a WikiProject that been launched on the subject of alternative education. I have noticed that you seem to have an interest and/or some experience in this area. I would like to invite you to join this effort. If you are interested, please visit the WikiProject page. Several of our participants are helping on a daily basis, some weekly, and a few only have a little time to contribute sporadically. Any level of participation is helpful and welcome. We hope you will consider joining our team. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 01:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Country rock, in music and geology
First, thanks for starting the article about the geological term: I've never heard of that, and I like to learn things. Second, I noticed that you moved a couple of pages to different titles. You might want to read over Wikipedia:Naming conventions. It's standard to name articles in this pattern: Specific title (category), rather than Category (specific title). If someone came to the encyclopedia wanting to know more about "country rock," that's probably the exact phrase they'd type in, so that's what the main article title should be. For some examples, check out the titles of Nirvana (band), Pipe (computing), and The Bird (mascot). If you have no objections, I'm going to move the articles back where they were. Joyous | Talk 17:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're certainly welcome, and thanks for the kind comment. I hope you enjoy being here. Feel free to ask if you need help with anything: I don't always know the answer, but I can generally point you to someone who does. Joyous | Talk 02:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)