User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 8

Adoption (1)
Hi my name is slimhady (my real name is Dalton). I am looking currently for a mentor because I need help in wikipedia I am not that old I am only 13 But I am very smart and have a hole library wall in my room.

--Slimshady (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Constantia Oomen
Hi, would you mind giving Articles for deletion/Constantia Oomen a second look to see if the references now provided changes things for you? Cheers / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for your help!

HTcreager (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Religious language
Hello! Your submission of Religious language at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy of Religion sidebar
On Logical positivism is very cheeky. I'm not disagreeing… but all that formaldehyde can make 'em a bit ornery. Best to have a Tesla coil, flappers and cocaine standing by.—Machine Elf 1735  21:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Adoption request
I have no problem with you making Mistakes, because Everybody makes mistakes. I for one have made a ton of mistakes in my lifetime. Anyway I Would happily be your apprentice if you approve of me being only thirteen years old. I may be young but am very very smart and would like to contribute o wikipedia the best I can.

Also i understand if things will take long, but please note i have no accesible email at home but i get back from school around 4:00 and i am on the computer almost every day i will be on wikipedia a lot.

--Slimshady (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's wonderful; I am more than happy to take you on. I have no problem with your age - provided you are mature (which it seems you are), you are more than welcome at Wikipedia. On that note, I do suggest that you read Guidance for younger editors if you have not already.
 * If you ever have any questions or problems - be that with content, technical issues, other editors or anything else, please come and ask me. I will try to regularly contact you and see how you're doing. I would also be willing to provide a short course on Wikipedia's policies and practices, which you can complete at the same time. I'd also like to ask you a few questions myself, just so I can get to know you a little.
 * What interests do you have outside of Wikipedia that you have knowledge about?
 * What other experience have you had online?
 * How involved would you like to be in community discussions?
 * That's all for now. As I said, I'm delighted that I'll be able to mentor you. I wish you the best of luck for your time here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Religious language
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Question
Okay remember that Image Uploading article you sent me? Well it told me that I can't use it... I've tryed a bunch of different things, but how excatly do I get my article public? I can't seem to figure this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HTcreager (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 WikiGrail
Hi there! I was admiring your great work on Christianity-related articles, which made me think you should sign up for the 2012 WikiGrail. It is a friendly competition for Christianity-related project members that awards points for good articles, featured content, and other markers of editing skill. You simply just have to list your name here. Hope to see you there! Warm regards, – Lionel (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Falklands War
Hi Its Zippy,

With the medcab on the Falklands War now closed, I wondered if you had any ideas for how best to tackle an unresolved situation such as this one? Is there any other forum you would use, or do you have any other thoughts on the next best step?

Cheers, Ranger Steve   Talk  13:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve, thanks for your message. I think the difficulty with this case is that people are now getting tired of it. I think that, if you want to resolve it, you'll need to get all parties on board, willing to talk through the issues. It might be worth continuing the discussion on the talk page, once you have all parties willing to co-operate. I know that some of the problems have been with people moving off topic and commenting on the behaviour of other people, rather than the issue; it might, therefore, be worth asking an uninvolved admin to watch over the discussion to deal with any such issues. I really hope that this can be resolved, and I'm sorry that mediation did not work out. Best of luck with it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Works for me, I am willing to discuss the matter collegially as I always have been. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter
Hey guys!

Thanks to all of you who have commented on the New Page Triage talkpage. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :).

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue One - Recent news from the Teahouse
Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse! You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
 * A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the Your hosts page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
 * Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

TFA
Hey, hope things are going well, I just wanted to mention to you that you should feel free to nominate Prosperity theology at WP:TFAR anytime you want. I'm not opposed to it being TFA, but it's not something I'm particularly gripped by so I probably won't nominate it myself. Not sure how you feel about TFA, it's up to you though. Oh, and I've been meaning to review your Augustinian article, got caught up in a million other things--will try to do that soon though. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I hadn't thought of that. Like you, I'm not too fussed about it, but I don't mind either way. And thank you - I would appreciate that. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've heard enough horror stories about TFAs getting attention from POV pushers and so, not sure if that is always the case though. BTW, I posted a review of Augustine's theodicy, basically just minor qualms. Also, feel free to revert my copyedits. (Hopefully not all of them though!) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Userpage and some questions ( response)
Hello Its zippy,

I did not miss your last message but I may not have answered your questions. Anyway thank you, I did not no wether I should put my school in or not my dad said it would be bad. (shouldve listened to him.) Anyway to answer your questions: Ouside of wikipedia i have great intrests in: Video games, The lord of the rings, Eminem and his albums That's pretty much it. Other experiances online i have had are, Yahoo answers, ROblox, Minecraft, and wikianswers. Community discussions are nice and i would love to participate in them a lot if that's ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimhady (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answers - that's great. On the userpage issue, ask Quadell - he is an admin and will be able to delete the revisions for you (refer him to this discussion if you need to).


 * I see you have found a WikiProject, that's great and what I was going to recommend. It might be a good idea to place User WP Music to your talk page, so that people know you are interested in helping out there. That WikiProject will have lists of things that need doing and a place for you to discuss what needs to be done there - you might want to introduce yourself on the talk page. What articles do you think you would like to improve? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help as for quadell i'll ask him. But i'm not sure what articles i'm going to edit yet.
 * )- Slim hady 20:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. It would be a good idea to find some articles you would like to edit - it will help you get moving here. Perhaps look for a game you know that needs to be improved and start there. I know it can be a little daunting at first: if there are articles you are interested in but don't know how to improve, send me a message with a link to the article and I'll give you some pointers. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornerstone Barristers
I'm a U.S. editor not associated with the British legal system or any company or association involved with such. I discovered the above discussion while going through very old AfD discussions and decided after a reasonable search to assert "keep." Would you consider looking at my assertion to see if anything I've written changes your mind? I've suggested to the COI ip address he or she disclose their interest and find some solid sources which demonstrate notability under the old brand name. No matter what your decision, I appreciate your giving this a second look. BusterD (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very kind of you to reconsider. I should mention you accidentally struck through Mr. S's delete, not your own. BusterD (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes - thanks for notifying me. Whoops. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi, I would like to be adopted for a short period of time, just to improve my editing and knowledge. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tomtomn00, thanks for your request. I would be happy to adopt you, though there are some things I'd let to let you know before we start. Firstly, adoption isn't a quick process and can take a few months; I will do my utmost to help you learn and get to know how things work, but I will expect commitment on your part. Secondly, you will be only the second person I have formally adopted, so I will make no claims to be perfect - if that is a problem, then let me know. I will always answer any questions you have, either personally or pointing you towards the right people/place, as soon as I can. I'll follow how you're getting on and, when we both feel that you're ready, you will graduate from the programme. Is that all ok? If you're happy with that, let me know, and I'll take you on.


 * I would also like to invite you to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where I am a host. It is a friendly place for new users to introduce themselves, meet other editors and ask any questions they have. The Teahouse should give extra help and support, on top of our adoption. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that. However, I'm not really new and have been here since 2010, first edit in 2011. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. I would be happy to adopt you. I will watch your progress and try to help wherever I can; if you ever have a problem or a question (about anything - policy, technical things, other editors, whatever), come and ask me. I would like to know - what areas of Wikipedia are you interested in editing? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything in the article, wikipedia, template, category and all talk mainspaces. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 19:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's quite broad. Are there any specific areas that you are interested in (outside of Wikipedia) - that could be academic, sports, games or TV programmes, music, anything. I find that it is good to know the kind of area you enjoy editing, as it will editing much more fun. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Mostly Technology, Music, Art and Mathematics. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 19:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's good to know. WikiProjects exists for all of those - music, technology, arts and mathematics. Do any of those grab your fancy? I would advise trying to get involved with one, as they will be able to tell you what needs doing and the best articles to edit. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in computing, mathematics and music so far. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 21:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What the benefit of adopting a user
What the benefit of adopting a user & getting adopted, i have never heard of this feature before on wikipedia. And how does it work? I am assuming it keeps you away from trouble or getting blocked?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Most people's aim on Wikipedia is to be the best editor they can be. What User:Worm That Turned has said about his adoption process is that it gives you a good grounding in all the basic areas you need knowledge of to be able to become a great editor. (It's not a preparation for being an administrator, which a few people mistakenly see it as.) Of course, all adoptees handle adoption differently to one extent or another, and also most adopters will adapt their adoption process according to the needs of the adoptee. So adoption can help address issues like over-focusing on one topic or getting angry or whatever.


 * Now of course, assuming the adoption process achieves some of these aims, yes it can help prevent you getting blocked. On the other hand, if there are problems that can't be dealt with (or can't be dealt with quickly enough), then it won't always prevent you getting blocked. It's not an anti-block shield. In fact, some adopters do end up having to block their own adoptees, either permanently or temporarily.


 * You also asked about the benefits of adopting. The benefits there are very much like the benefits of helping new editors in less formal processes. We all know that there are lots of Wikipedia requirements and approaches and policies that are (almost) second nature once you know them, but absolutely arcane and frustrating when encountering them explained badly (or not explained at all) when first starting out editing. Being able to (hopefully) make that process so much easier for someone who is enthusiastic about contributing but frustrated by the obstacles, is immensely rewarding. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage newsletter
Hey all!

Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).

In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

William S. Sadler
Hi again, I let William S. Sadler sit for a couple weeks and then went over the prose again. I'm hoping to build it up to featured status. Could you take another look and see if you can spot any issues? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll have a look later and given you my feedback when I can. I don't know when it will be though: if I don't get it done by this Friday, it'll have to be the end of next week (I'm away from Saturday to Wednesday). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. No rush, I probably won't be able to nominate it for at least a month. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, I have a peer review open for the article now. Sorry for posting in the middle of the page and making you search for this. I didn't want to create another section though. BTW, hope that your vacation went well. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kantian ethics
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Phylogeny and Ontogeny revisted

 * Hi Zippy,
 * I am not sure if you remember me, but I would like your feedback again. I had contributed to ontogeny and phylogenetics, but someone reversed my contributions, saying that thte psychoanalytical explanation should not be included in an article on eugenetical biology. While I agree to this in the phylogenetics (I want to stress the genetics), I do not agree on the phylogeny or ontogeny, since these are the terms that have both designation (psychoanalytical and eugentical). We discussed the possibility of splitting off the phylogeny page from the phylogenetics before, so I am hoping you will have more to say on this matter.
 * Thanks in advance,
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Fan Singh Long, it's good to hear from you again. I would first say that I am not really an expert on this area, so I can only give advice from my knowledge regarding Wikipedia without possibly valuable knowledge about the specific issues. From what I can see, the two topics (ontogeny in biology and psychoanalysis) are completely different, only joined by the use of the word. As far as I can tell, there is no similarity in thinkers or scientists, nor anyone who has drawn parallels between them. In this case, they should probably be treated as two separate articles. You would have to disambiguate them in some way; I would suggest that ontogeny becomes a disambiguation page, the current page is moved to ontogeny (biology) and you create ontogeny (psychoanalysis) for your new content. Does that sound reasonable? If I have made any errors regarding the subjects, let me know. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Zippy,
 * Thanks for your feedbaack. I would like to add one piece of information to your knowledge and then ask you to reconsider. Your reconsidered advice I will weigh in my decision. The extra information is that both terms mean exactly the same. The only difference is the application either in genetics or psychoanalysis: a background research of the subject by investigating it's past experiences with the family/group it lives in and investigating the family/group history itself. I am curious if you will now choose one general page for ontogeny and phylogeny, with links to the two diciplines. This seems more beneficial to everyone in my opinion. Please let me know.
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. How was your trip?


 * Hi Fan Singh Long, thanks for your reply. As for the question, I'm really not sure, beyond what I have said already. The best way to proceed would probably be to consult the sources and the community. Look at the sources - do the biological & psychoanalytical applications tend to appear together, or are they more often treated separately? Also, it would probably be worth finding wider community consensus - I am more than happy to give my opinion, but it is always best to ask a wider range of people. Try asking at the Biology or Psychology WikiProjects (I suggest starting a discussion at one of then and then posting a note at the other with a link to the discussion). Does that help?


 * And my trip was good, thanks. I was visiting universities to decide where I want to go in September; really enjoyed it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Zippy,
 * Thanks for the feedback. I will say that stuff like this is really only applied in deeper investigations. Psychology usually ends at the pain over a divorce, or the attempt to mediate between two lovers or some such innocent stuff, while medical investigations usually end at finding some ailment or applying cirgery, both building logs as life progresses. The research into family origins and genetic development is done for different reasons. Biology itself can investigate, for evolutionary understandings and in psychiatry people investigate. Both involve the physical and the mental properties. In fact, this is the difference between psychiatry and psychology (psychiatrists hold both a physical and a psychological doctors degree). So, it should go together imho. I think your suggestion to discuss it broader is probably one I should look into. So, thanks for the tip again!
 * Nice to hear your trip was good. What kind of thing will you be studying, if I may be so bold as to ask?
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure who to discuss it with (for some peer feedback), since psychology would, out of it's normal function, seperate it from the physical attribute. Perhaps this is a time to just be bold?
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Fan Singh Long. Usually being bold is a good idea, but you've already done that and someone reverted it. Wikipedia tends to operate on a bold revert discuss cycle, that is: you act boldly, someone reverts, then it is discussed. As I said before either of those two WikiProjects would be a good place to start the discussion (wherever you start it, you can let people at the other Project know what you are doing). Alternatively, you could post a message on the talk page of the article - some people may be watching that. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Zippy,
 * I will follow your lead on the suggested places for discussion. I also noticed your remark on Kantian ethics. I consider myself well read and well educated in Kantian morality. What do you want me to do?
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That looks like a good idea - I hope the discussion goes well.

Kantian Ethics
As for Kantian ethics, I would be delighted if you could help in any way with the article. I'm not sure that there is anything specific that needs doing at the moment; in general, the article could do with a more extensive explanation of the theory itself and further responses from other philosophers. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, several things jump into mind right now. Influences (of and by Kant), proper references, more examples, references to medical and psychoanalytical articles, references to important terms, like deontology and such. How much do you know about this mans work by the way?
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever you can do would be great. I know a reasonable amount about Kant, though not as much as I do other philosophers. I'm learning as I write this article, though. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. How did you learn what you know about Kant exactly (apart from the article)?
 * I'll get on it any day now. I am having trouble finding these days, but that will change in the near future.
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that sounds good. I've come across Kant in various reading I've done - I tend to read quite a bit around philosophy. His ethical theory and moral arguments came up in my philosophy A-level too, so I thought I'd read around the subject and then edit Wikipedia (Wikipedia is such a good revision tool). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, that is definately a good quality and WP is definately a good revision tool indeed. I would like to advise you, if you want to be correct in what you think to know, to read the writings of the philosophers themselves. Most interpretations have more to do with the interpreter (which is interesting in itself, ofcourse), than with the original philosopher. It has to do with the idea of trying to be descriptive, while being descriptive is always also a prescription of the things the describer finds important enough to mention.
 * Anyway, I am not sure if I should add anything at all to your piece, apart from references and perhaps some lines to the general introduction to add some terms and links. Do you want me to propose my less small changes on the talkpage first, so we can discuss them?
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Query: I have set my first task to be to properly source the first three formulations. Do you think I should use my Dutch copy as a source, or look for a source on the internet (in English), or both?
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I mean editing Wikipedia is useful for revision - the research required is really useful, as it gets me reading loads of stuff around the course (or course, I do more that just edit Wikipedia). As for the article, feel free to just make changes as and when you need to (it's not my article) - if I disagree with anything you do, I'll bring it up and we can talk about it (as usual). To me, the most obvious things needed would be an expansion to the three forumulas (they cover enough, but could be more comprehensive) with additional references. Also, work on reactions might be nice - I'm not incredibly familiar with reactions to Kant's ethics, so if there's anything else, that might be worth adding. Dutch sources are fine to use - there is no requirement that sources are in English. If an English translation of the source exists, use that; if no one has translated the source, the Dutch one will be fine. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Zippy,
 * I understood what you meant with revision tool. I agree. It forces you to be more precise in what you say and why you claim to say it. It forces you to do more research.
 * I want to clarify that Dutch (from Netherlands) is not Deutsch (from Germany), so Dutch is not Kant's original language. However, it should be a correct translation (my teacher recommended it and he is a German, speaking Dutch) and I will use it as such, also citing an online version in English.
 * As for the article, I thought the formulations were pretty good actually. I feel that it is accessible to people who are interested in this kind of thing. If someone wants more precise data, maybe that person should read Kant him- or herself, or maybe just check out a wiki article on the ethical books of Kant. However, I will definately consider changing the choice of words (after finishing some sources I am consulting). One thing I would like to change is your choice of 'reactions'. I would change it to influences. I will get to it later. If you are opposed to the very idea, please say so now. If not, you can always object later.
 * Anyway, cheers!
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw: Your notes seem to be what people commonly call references. Why did you choose this name?


 * Hi again.
 * Yes thanks - I know the difference between Dutch and Deutsch. My point was simply that with any foreign language, it is fine to use it as a source. If there is a translation available which is accepted as a good translation then go for that, but it doesn't matter too much.
 * If you think the formulations are good, that's fine. I'll do what I can to improve things when I see them. Bits of what I have written could certainly be improved, at least for style, so improve what you like there. I agree that the heading needs to change - I'm not sure influences is quite right (Hegel was not influenced by Kant, he just responded to him). Responses, maybe?
 * I know - I have just always used Notes: I'm habitual. Either Notes or References is allowed in the Manual of Style, so it's not that important.

ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Zippy,
 * I was re-reading the translations and I think I could edit it a little (just to be exact), but they are good enough as is imho. The questions is if we want to be literally correct here. I might do it before tucking in tonight, but maybe tomorrow. I am trying to get some references to off-wiki on-line sources working. You'll see them momentarily.
 * Is it possible to separate 'notes' and 'references'? That way we could be more specific in 'notes' for eager readers, making it similar to 'references', but adding to the grand total of the page.
 * Cheers!
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Concerning the 'reactions'; you didn't stick to direct reaction (Barton's book is from 1999). I am curious what you want with this section as a whole, since Barton is not in the same leage as Hegel and Schopenhauer (nor Habermas for that matter). However, perhaps we should include some of the most famous influences in different fields? I am thinking about Lacan in Psychoanalysis, Rawls in Politics/Law, Frege in Mathematics,....those few for now. What do you think?
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't care what we call the notes/references section - both are allowed in the MoS and neither one is any better than the other. It seems that the sources you added are from Kant's own work - I didn't realise that. In that case, it would be better to find the relevant information on Wikisource. For the reactions, I am thinking of something similar to the reception section in Augustinian theodicy and Irenaean theodicy. I'm hoping for a section which will cover any criticisms of Kant, including people who have developed or improves his ideas. With the influences, did these people say that their theories were developments of Kant's ethics (I don't know Lacan or Frege, but I don't recall Rawls doing so). What sources do you have from those three? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Zippy,
 * Frege was perhaps a stupid idea, because this is about kantian ontology (trans. idealistics), but both Lacan and Rawls base themselves on Kant. They could be great additions imho. The sources are in my personal bookcase by the way. My argument normally is: he says so himself. Secondary sources often contain errors imnho. I will check out the wikisource, I had not really seen it before.
 * Back to the matters at hand:
 * I was re-reading the article and there most of what you have can use some elaboration or (minor) edits. The question to me is how far we should go? Where to draw lines? Should it become a full-scale treatise, or be accessible to just any reader? I think that if I will go at it until I am satisfied, it will not be accessible for most anymore. That is probably not a good thing.
 * Maybe the most important of edit is the way you outline the topic. The thing of it is that Kant's ethics is basically one thing, which can be said in many ways. You cannot only understand one part of it, but you can only nderstand the system as a whole. Here, this is a direct quote:
 * On this origin are founded many expressions which designate the worth of objects according to moral ideas. The moral law is holy (inviolable). Man is indeed unholy enough, but he must regard humanity in his own person as holy. In all creation every thing one chooses and over which one has any power, may be used merely as means; man alone, and with him every rational creature, is an end in himself. By virtue of the autonomy of his freedom he is the subject of the moral law, which is holy. just for this reason every will, even every person's own individual will, in relation to itself, is restricted to the condition of agreement with the autonomy of the rational being, that is to say, that it is not to be subject to any purpose which cannot accord with a law which might arise from the will of the passive subject himself; the latter is, therefore, never to be employed merely as means, but as itself also, concurrently, an end. We justly attribute this condition even to the Divine will, with regard to the rational beings in the world, which are His creatures, since it rests on their personality, by which alone they are ends in themselves.
 * Is it really possible to understand why autonomy is important, if one does not understand the importance of the freedom to choose evil instead of good (as a part of ethical worth)? -No.
 * He has a way with words, doesn't he?
 * I think I should focus on adding Rawls and Lacan for now, to show the span of influence Kantian ethics have had. Then we can consider to which extent we should keep it accessible (or not) along the way.
 * I'll leave it at this for now (and await some feedback).
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you notice that my references contained the exact paragraphs where Kant says so? Imho the individual references have value. That way people can examine the online source quickly. Is that too precise?
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your reply.


 * We must be careful not to deviate too far from Kant's ethics in this article. This is not a detailed encyclopedia of philosophy, so excessive detail with render it inaccessible. A guide I find useful is to consider the level at which the idea is usually introduced and write the article so it could be understood by someone in one level lower. Kantian ethics would probably first come up at A level, so most of the article should be accessible to 16 year-old in school. Also, we need to ensure we do not get sidetracked. Sections on who Kant's ethics influenced are great, provided they remain focused on Kant's ethics - with Habermas, I briefly described discourse ethics, but the focus was on the influence of Kant.


 * It would be helpful if you could name the sources you are using (I might not own them, but I can probably access some of them over Google Books). That would make it easier for me to understand what you intend to add. Secondary sources can be very useful, as they allow us to present interpretations of ideas. We can use primary sources only to describe what people said - if we need to interpret something, that would be original research. I suggest we look for sources from recognised philosophers who give significant consideration to the influence of Kantian ethics on Rawls and Lacan.


 * I'm sorry if I hastily removed the sources - I hadn't intended to do so. It might be a good idea to add the name of the book to the bibliography section and then reference the author & page number in the references (as I have done with the other sources). It is not necessary for readers to be able to immediately access the source (we don't need to link to an online version of a book) - provided we reference the book and give the page number, we're ok.


 * Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Zippy,
 * N.P., I love Kant. I don't like taking away from his essence though (be warned)! ;)
 * Why don't you handle the references the way you see fit. I would appreciate it if you find a way to mention the exact locations of the sources, but hey, people would need to read the source themselves anyway. The argument in favor for exact locations is reference efficiency. I could use wiki as a tool for quick quotes for instance. Now that is really not done.
 * In my edits I really just add what I have read myself in the works of the authors. That means I have the text in front of my face usually. Now with Rawls for instance I remember what he said, so I have typed it out in my sandbox (it needs a little work). I will use google books or something to find the exact quotes and reference it like that. If I am unable to find it, then I might look for other sources. I googled it already and there are a number anyway. Is this not done for some reason?
 * I want to say that I am enjoying working with you (especially on this project).
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, Fan Singh Long
 * I'm happy to deal with the references issue. I was a bit hasty earlier, so I'm sorry about that. I'll have a look at fixing that later (either this evening or sometime this week).
 * That sounds fine then. I guess I'm just nervous because I don't know so much myself (that's more of a fault on my part). Add what you feel to be necessary and I'll make any edits I think are needed.
 * And I enjoy working with you too. I've found that philosophy is under-represented at Wikipedia so I rarely get to work with others on specific articles; it is refreshing when I can (my only Featured Article I worked on with someone else). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Zippy,
 * Take your time on the references. It'll happen when it'll happen.
 * Check out what I did with Rawls by the way.
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S.
 * I just like to read and because I read the right books (I always say science fiction for adults), I just know more than most. I always read at least 10 pages a day (well, almost always) in the train, or on the couch with coffee. That means one or two important thoughts a month. Total that makes about 30 a year, 300 in 10 years. I've had more time to read than you. If you take only the 10 pages every day, you will be full of knowledge after a couple of yours. You'll see.


 * Your improvements to Rawls & addition of Lacan look very good. I might give them a brief copyedit, but the content & sourcing is great. Just a quick note on style - when you put two references next to each other, don't bother with commas or spacing, like so: . Also, in terms of reliable referencing, could you tell me what makes lacan.com a reliable source? Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Continuing at Kantian ethics talk page.
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

T-Cut
Hi, As advised i have rewritten my article on T-Cut in draft and wondered if you could offer advise before i try to re-upload? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SARAHELIZTAYLOR (talk • contribs) 09:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I'm not sure I am the person you meant to contact - who was it that originally gave you advice about your article? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

help triage some feedback
Hey guys.

I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.

This is being done through the Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).

All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

More advice needed (my question on Teahouse today)
Thank you for your input, but it still is not quite right. Any ideas? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Bare URLs in References
We were talking about reference bots at the village pump. You mentioned a bot to convert bare URLs within references. That seems like a good idea, but different enough that I moved that thread of discussion here.

Bare URLs in references are a problem. It sounds like something a bot should do, but there are some technical challenges: should it be a  or a , etc; what should be the reference title? Access date?. Let me know your experience with this problem, maybe we can figure something out... Blevintron (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Blevintron, thanks for the message. I think a similar notification and template system would probably work, unless you can design a bot which can effectively work out what kind of link the URL is (which would be impressive, but sounds tricky). A similar system to your dead URL bot I think would work well. I have next to no experience in bot management, so I'm just throwing out ideas - I have no idea if they'll work. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)