User talk:Phlsph7

old archive: User_talk:Phlsph7/Archive_1

Archives (Index)

2025/June 2025/July 2025/August 2025/September 2025/October 2025/November 2025/December 2026/January 2026/February

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi, @Phlsph7! You have done an immense favor to the philosophy community by working on various philosophical articles and making them truly brilliant.

If you are accepting suggestions for the future, would you consider turning the free will article into Good Article? It is a Level 3 Vital Article, it has a large number of monthly visits, and it is one of the most misrepresented (relative to the academic discourse) topics in the popular (non-academic) philosophy. Additionally, it is one of the last Level 3 Vital Articles about philosophy specifically that isn't yet a GA. Turning it into a high-quality article would do an immense service to a whole lot of people. ~2026-12422-09 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the feedback! I agree, the article free will would be an interesting candidate. I put it on my todo list but I don't know when I'll get to it. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Appreciate you putting it on your to-do list ~2026-19678-72 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got over the hump of contributing to a GA philosophy article with Heraclitus. I would greatly appreciate if you had any comments or improvements. Cake (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MisterCake, congratulations on getting the article to GA status! The review dragged on for quite a while, so it's good to see that it has reached a conclusion. A few observations:

• One question already raised in the GA review concerns the length of the legacy section regarding WP:PROPORTION. It could probably be shortened by removing remarks that philosopher X wrote a sentence that mentions Heraclitus or resembles something Heraclitus said, such as the remarks about Diogenes the Cynic, Descartes, and Husserl. If the legacy section really is that important that it should fill half of the article, then this should probably be reflected in the lead as well, which currently only has a single sentence on the legacy and primarily discusses Heraclitus's philosophy.
• You could also try to focus the life section more on Heraclitus rather than presenting contextual information (like the first paragraph on the history of Ephesus) and evaluative anecdotes (like the third paragraph).
• Given that all the information in the section "Foreign influence" is highly speculative, I'm not sure that it deserves a full section with several subsections. Maybe the main points could be condensed into a paragraph and moved to another section. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• All good points but ones I will go back and forth on how to address. More about his life would always be welcome. I do think it is required to mention Miletus fell hence philosophy moves on from there. On Legacy, I wish I had something better to say about Descartes, since he would link Montaigne with Spinoza. Diogenes the same, as the Cynics were majorly influenced by Heraclitus. The original homeless philosopher. Husserl's quote I find already significant, for he talks a lot about the mind. The foreign influence is indeed speculative, but a major part of especially earlier Heraclitus studies. It was part of my attempt to cover all the interpretations. I tried to provide that. One could absorb it into the article, like in the fire section mention the potential Persian influence. But since that is more speculative, I like its own section. The Persia and Egypt parallels seem necessary to reference. The India parallels seem a bit more vague to me, but seem justified by the other two. PS It might be original research, so I did not include it, but Frege references "morning star and evening star" which comes from the entry on Pythagoras in Diogenes Laertius, and he says "The discovery that the rising sun is not new every morning, but always the same, was one of the most fertile astronomical discoveries." Surely a Heraclitus reference. Cake (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For more on his life, you could try the life sections of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry (in case you have access). It might be good to mention somewhere in this section that Heraclitus wrote a book. One way to assess WP:PROPORTION is to look at how much weight other overview sources give to a specific topic, like legacy and foreign influences. The two sources just mentioned give significantly less weight to these topics than our article. If you decide to keep the references to Husserl and the other two, you could try to present them in such a way that they do not sound like trivia. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Graham's Stanford article and Graham's work was used throughout. In fact I emailed him to make sure I cite his preferred journal article on Heraclitus (the one about him being a process philosopher). I also have a paper copy of Laertius. Long's Routledge entry looks really interesting, but I do not have access. Are there any known biographical details I am missing? The one supposed fact about his life, that he renounced some aristocratic life, is likely based on him saying "the Kingdom is a child's", as the article notes. Other depictions of his life like as a lonely wanderer eating shrubs seems again inferred from the fragments. The article notes how he gets confused for a Pythagorean vegetarian since he condemned blood sacrifice. Cake (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The following are the first two paragraphs of the Routledge entry, have a look if that has something useful.

  Heraclitus appears to have spent his life in Ephesus, which had been founded as a Greek colony some 200 years before his birth. According to ancient biography he was an arrogant and surly aristocrat, given to eccentric behaviour, but these anecdotes are largely a fictional construction built out of his own words, in which the tone he adopts in relation to other people is contemptuous. Rather than viewing this as a psychological trait, it is better to treat it as an extreme instance of the way early Greek poets and sages claimed authority for their work. Heraclitus, however, is exceptional in the explicit contempt he expresses for such hallowed authorities as Homer and Hesiod, and also for the contemporary intellectuals Xenophanes, Hecataeus and Pythagoras. He may have been on bad terms with his fellow citizens for political reasons, including perhaps support he received from King Darius of Persia, and it is likely that he was opposed to the democratic constitutions some Greek communities were beginning to adopt.

  Although Heraclitus presents himself as uniquely enlightened, he was clearly familiar with the leading thinkers of his time. He draws attention to the relativity of judgments and the difference between humans and animals in ways that recall Xenophanes’ critique of religious beliefs (see Xenophanes §3). He almost certainly knew and rejected Pythagoras’ doctrine of the transmigration of souls (see Pythagoras §2). His cosmology is both indebted to and a criticism of Milesian science: the criticism appears particularly in his denial of the world’s beginning, but his focus on the law-like processes of nature has clear affinities with Anaximander’s celebrated doctrine of cosmic justice (see Anaximander §4).

  Phlsph7 (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I am jealous of Long's ability to write. I think I covered everything in that first paragraph. He was arrogant. He was un-democratic if not aristocratic. He dislikes everyone. In fact I would say "including perhaps support he received from King Darius of Persia" is chalked up to the "foreign influence" section, proving its worth.

  The second paragraph is really interesting for its talk of Heraclitus's influences. It would be neat to draw a parallel between Heraclitus and Xenophanes, as the two transitional figures between the Milesians and what comes after. I guess one can see it in that they both talk about animals being contrasted with God. That seems a possible addition to the God section. Opposing Pythagoras on transmigration seems a possible addition to the Soul section. The Anaximander influence on justice (though more in opposition) is mentioned in the strife section. I am struggling for what to add from this to the biography section. He basically has no biography, but a ton of influence, hence the article done that way.

  PS There are mereological interpretations of the philosophers after Heraclitus. One can say the Eleatics, the pluralists, and the atomists, believed respectively in nothing has parts, everything has parts, and something has no parts. I wonder if there are any interpretations of Heraclitus as the transitional figure, from Milesian material monism to mereology. Perhaps one could say Heraclitus said there were no wholes. Heraclitus says things are both "whole and not whole", and Laertius specifically uses "the whole flows" when summarizing his philosophy. Cake (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your User:Phlsph7/SpellGrammarSuggestions and User:Phlsph7/SpellGrammarSuggestionsList. You may or may not be interested in User:Polygnotus/Scripts/SourcerySpell.js and User:Polygnotus/Scripts/Spell.js. Polygnotus (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

My story today is about Bernhard Waldenfels. Remember? Thank you again for your help with philosophy language! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page, I'm most proud of a woman's work, so made it my story. As it happens, last year's story OTD was about the woman. - I really should say thee topics, because I did almost nothing for Habermas, but I was willing if there were still open tasks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

on Bach's birthday, a story about my joy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should join Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. You are one of the best contributor at WP. ~2026-16285-41 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ~2026-16285-41 and thanks for the suggestion! I plan to participate but I haven't yet decided which article to work on. I'll probably write an entry sometime next month. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Hopefully that Nothing is also at your to do list since It has philosophy content. ~2026-16515-57 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that would be an interesting candidate. I'll look into it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Formal semantics (natural language), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that formal semantics uses logic and mathematics to study language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Formal semantics (natural language). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Formal semantics (natural language)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the articles on logic are a mix of technicians above my pay grade, and fake news from memes Ayn Rand style. I did my best to fix the "laws of thought" article and each principle by itself. I am unclear on the differences between the principle of bivalence and the law of excluded middle. Most commentary on Aristotle's sea battle treats them as equivalent. Would you be so kind to give the bivalence article a look? Cake (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MisterCake, you are right that various logic articles struggle to make their topic accessible to a general reader. As I understand it, the principle of bivalence is about the possible truth values of propositions (every proposition has either the truth value "true" or the truth value "false") and the law of excluded middle is about a tautology (all propositions of the form "P or not-P" are automatically true). For example, three-valued logics violate the principle of bivalence (some propositions have the truth value "indeterminate") and intuitionistic logics violate the law of excluded middle (the proposition "P or not-P" is not automatically true). Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't intuitionistic logics have a third truth value of indeterminate or unproven?? Cake (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At least not the standard version. One way to understand intuitionistic logic is to see it as a classical logic with fewer rules of inference. Because some rules of inference are missing, there are certain things you can prove in classical logic but not in intuitionistic logic. For example, you can't infer P from not-not-P in intuitionistic logic. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought not-not-P doesn't entail P because there are three truth values. If there is P, not-P, and a third, then not-not P is either P or a third option. I guess I am lost as to how a truth value gap is not a violation of the law of excluded middle. That is how Aristotle's sea battle is often expressed in the literature. Wiki seems to say it isn't. For example, "Cooper, Neil. “The Law of Excluded Middle.” Mind 87, no. 346 (1978): 161–80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2253416." seems to disagree. Cake (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A.I. has told me bivalence entails LEM, but LEM doesnt necessarily entail bivalence. That first part fits what I have read. For instance, I have heard it said Aristotle's denial of bivalence entails a denial of excluded middle. It seems to me, due to the meme that Aristotle did the "3 laws of logic" wiki tried to previously say he denied bivalence but not excluded middle, as if a third truth value isn't the middle being excluded. Cake (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For a different opinion, see [1]: There is certainly a close connection between LEM and PB, but they are not trivially equivalent. There are logical systems (e.g. certain many-valued logics and supervaluational languages) in which LEM is valid but PB does not hold, and vice versa (see e.g. van Fraasen 1966, Day 1992, DeVidi & Solomon 1999).

The two principles are not always clearly distinguished in reliable sources, which makes understanding the difference more difficult. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for Nihilism, introduced as "a family of views that reject certain aspects of existence, including the ideas that life is meaningless, that moral values are baseless, and that knowledge is impossible. The article is a level-4 vital article with over 1.2 million page views last year"! - Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about one of three bios I brought to today's main page: look and listen, an extraordinary woman in many respects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest has begun! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes. Although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue working on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings or prizes.

We are now about a week in, and it's worth sharing some issues we judges have noticed in the past:

• Understandability is extra important for big topics like these. Avoid jargon when possible; give context (and of course, citations), even for things that seem obvious; and always consider the age-old adage from Iridescent: "would a bright 14-year old with no prior knowledge of the topic understand this?"
• The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. Instead of asking "what do I want to say in this article", ask yourself: "what do most high-quality, reliable and recent sources say about this topic?"
• Take a global perspective whenever possible. If you're writing about someone from France, consider looking at recent, high-quality sources in French. Amid language barriers, consider the careful use of an online translation tool or *shudder* a language dictionary.
• Plan, plan, plan! Make an outline, a draft TOC, or some kind of gameplan. Big articles are a different beast, and it's worth figuring out structural and logistical aspects early on.

Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Cognition, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agnosticism, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burden of proof was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlsph7, nice talking to you again. In return for your review to The Emancipation of Mimi, I'm happy to review an FAC of yours. Would dualism still need a review or would you want me to wait until your next candidate? Thanks and best, 750h+ 13:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 750h+ and thanks for the offer! Reviews are always welcome, but the dualism nomination already has several finished reviews, so it wouldn't be essential there. In case the topic Well-being interests you, this would be my next candidate in need of reviews, probably in a few days once I have finished preparations. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Alright, I started the nomination, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Well-being/archive1. I would be interested in your comments if you find the time. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to ! 750h+ 01:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Well-being, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A ISBN error. References show this error when the ISBN value or formatting is invalid. Please edit the article to ensure the value is correct, that only one ISBN is used, that the proper optional separators are used, and that no other text is included. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phlsph7,

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Agnosticism is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Agnosticism has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Dualism, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice you have the Truth article nominated for GA (as well as some others). I just nominated Dam for GA, and I'm looking for someone to swap reviews with. Are you interested in swapping GA reviews? I could do Truth, or any other of your GA nominations. I know some editors don't like swapping GA reviews, but it is not prohibited, provided that the reviews are thorough and proper ... which is what we both want, of course. I think you and I swapped a pair of PR reviews in 2025. Schedule: I'm hoping to have the reviews done within 7 to 10 days after starting, so I can move forward towards a FA nomination. Thanks for considering it! Noleander (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noleander and thanks for the offer. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly familiar with the topic of dams or with articles on civil engineering, so I may not be the best reviewer candidate. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Good luck with your nominations! Noleander (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Core Contest participants! There is less than one week left until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), so it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!

Now is a good time to set some final goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

This is to let you know that Cognition has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 July 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Semiotics is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Freedom4U -- Freedom4U (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Truth is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ScrubbedFalcon -- ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.