User talk:Fan Singh Long

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For Future Use[edit]

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I will better myself.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference principle and stuff[edit]

Hi. I am sorry I am not really well-read in the same sorts of areas of philosophy as you I think. But is your question concerning how to make a new article? See WP:NEW.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I am really looking for some help on how to deal with the misnaming of an article. In this case a logical term comes up with an explantion on a political and judicial matters by John Rawls! That makes no sense to me. I think it should change so we could (and I am not saying that I will), but that we could create the logical page and that the book by Rawls will have a page with a name that actually refers to it. Or do you think this should be dealt with in a different way? --Fan Singh Long (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure the term does not have two meanings? Could be a case where a WP:DAB or WP:REDIRECT should be created, leading to 2 articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, it turns out you are right. I had forgotten about it, remembering mostly the liberty and equality principle. In fact, the page exists as Justice_as_Fairness, but I found the redirect from the Difference_principle. Maybe we should create a logical stub and a disambiguation page? What do you think?
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well it sounds logical. Concerning leaving messages for people there are various strategies. Some people use templates.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
What kind of templates? And do you like them?
Concerning the principle: I'll leave it for now and get back to it later and decide if I want to create the page and ambiguation. Can I knock on your door again at that time?
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Again not really my thing. Not everyone likes those templates, but for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Usertalkback --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot andrew, the talkback might come in handy. Hey, you wouldn't happen to know how to upload a picture or anything, would you?
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure. But on the "teach a man to fish" principle perhaps it is better if I explain the following. If you go to the search box at the top of the page, you know that if you type in "image" you will get an article, image. But, try searching for "WP:image" and this will get you to results within the Wikipedia webspace instead of articles. Other possibilities are searching for "help:something" and "template:something" and indeed "image:something" or "file:something".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the tip! Hey, mind if I knock on your door from time to time if I want to know something?
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Salva congruitate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Hale (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) 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Vivid designator[edit]

Hi there, Fan Singh Long. I just stumbled across the article you created on Vivid designator, which I am impressed with. I gave it a brief copyedit, but thought I'd give a little advice on improving it. You seem to understand the concept very well; however, remember that not everyone who reads the article will. You should try to explain technical terms (such as de re, or quantified modal logic), which will be alien to people outside of the world of philosophy. Also, while what you have written is sourced well, do take a look for additional sources which can provide alternative views on a subject. If you have any problems, just drop a note to me at my talk page. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 18:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Left message at talk page.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback[edit]

That's great! I'm glad you were able to find someone to help you. Cheers!

Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 

It is just nice to know that someone cares. Now I know you care that someone cares I am doubly as happy.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ontogeny and phylogeny[edit]

Hi Fan Singh Long. Sorry for the late reply. While psychoanalysis is not my field, I think the two concepts of ontogeny are distinct to the point where they would be better served by separate articles. They may both be referred to by the same name, but this is not in itself a problem since article titles can be disambiguated. Ontogeny (psychoanalysis) would be one possible title, for example. A hatnote could then be placed at the top of the ontogeny article to direct readers to the appropriate page. Possibly something like:

Having taken a quick look at this entry from the Gale Dictionary of Psychoanalysis, I’m wondering whether phylogenesis and ontogenesis might be better titles for these topics? While both of these terms are currently redirects to the biology articles, this can be changed, possibly by turning them directly into articles on the concepts in psychoanalysis (if these are determined to be the primary topics).

I’m going to be pretty busy in the near future so I can’t promise any major contributions towards a phylogeny (psychoanalysis)/phylogenesis article, but I can certainly take a look when you’re done. mgiganteus1 (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mgiganteus1,
Don't worry about late replies. Sometimes other things are more important, and besides, didn't I leave you hanging for about 3 or 4 weeks while I was travelling? I'll just treat it in the way that you don't have to help me out, or even respond to me, so I'll be happy with whatever you give me, if any.
I think we agree on phylogeny (psychoanalysis) as a seperate topic, but I will do that one last because it is more difficult to me and it will give us time to think about which names the seperate pages should have and what should be on which page. However, I think most of this can be decided by deciding so for the ontogeny pages. In both cases there is a physical and a mental attribute, so I think the difficulty is exactly the same and therefore the solution should be as well.
Here Goes:
  • If we decide on two seperate pages on the two aspects of Ontogeny (known to us), I think there would still need to be one page with an explanation of the term in general (which, in fact, is the same for both aspects and cover almost everything that the page contained (including my addition)). So, In my opinion we should start with one page on the term in general, after which we should create the two separations, where people might investigate the aspect of their choice further.
What do you think?
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there’s a need for a more general article on ontogeny and its various forms/definitions. See for example how Taxonomy is treated: the article covers the primary topic (biological classification), with a hatnote pointing to a page that lists other taxonomies (Taxonomy (disambiguation)), but there’s no higher-level taxonomy article covering all concepts. The same could be done for ontogeny. Does this sound reasonable? mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree that this could be done in several ways (and the option you suggested is one of them), I must say that your idea is illogical to me. While I do believe that all information can be covered in the way you suggest, I think your example lacks a clear separation between Taxonomy and Biological taxonomy. The same would happen in the cases of ontogeny and phylogeny imho. Now that articles are relatively short, they are easier to separate and make insightful to every reader. Imho we should take this chance so that all readers might benefit of our magnanimity.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
My concern is: how much can be written about ontogeny in general, that wouldn't also feature in a comprehensive article about ontogeny (biology) or ontogeny (psychoanalysis)? If such a general article could never be expanded much beyond a stub without repeating content wholesale from its daughter articles, then I would question whether it is needed at all. Since Wikipedia articles should be based on what has been previously published in reliable sources, the important question here is whether there are sources that treat these two concepts collectively in this way? mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I was having a similar concern, only reversed: Would the two daughter pages still contain anything that would not be mentioned in the general outline? I think not much. his is why I added it to the articles already present. I was thinking about changing the name as well (from -genetic to -geny). This means that we both think that maybe we should make only one article out of both terms and that we might not want to separate after all, I think. Looking back, do you now think it might be a good idea?
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
If I can jump in... It seems reasonable to me to create two distinct pages for biology & psychoanalysis (call them what you will) with a disambiguation page (that goes for both ontogeny and phylogeny). Though biological and psychoanalytical ontogeny both derive from the same fundamental idea, they mean very different things in their contexts - the only common ground would be the basic idea of development. This basic idea can be expressed in a few lines. Therefore, to have an article on ontogeny would either be very short or would end up replicating the content of the more specific article. Thus I can see no need for anything more than a disambiguation page. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 19:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait, are the both of you saying the same thing here and am I the odd man out?
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Having said that, it would be good if we can get a clearer consensus that 2:1. Does what we suggest sound reasonable to you? ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 19:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Reasonable does not make right, but I can live with it. I'll get on it in a few days.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Kantian ethics[edit]

Hi Fan Singh Long. Just to let you know, I've copied our discussion to talk page and replied there - would you mind continuing the discussion we've been having on that page, please? This will make it more transparent for other editors who may wish to help improve the page and will also be convenient for me (it's getting to the end of the month, and I archive my talk page monthly). Thanks. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 19:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Noted.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Ontogeny (psychoanalysis)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Ontogeny (psychoanalysis). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Ontogeny. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Ontogeny - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Yasht101 08:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yasht101,
As you can see below I am unactive for a while due to family circumstances. I will say that concerning the ontogeny (and phylogeny), I was the one who wanted to include the psychoanalysis in the original article, but I was voted out. Therefore I created the new articles. For talk on it, see above on this page, the talk pages of all the topics involved and the talk pages of the biology and psychology wikiprojects. If you see a way to counter the majority, I am game , but at a later time. I need to spend my time with my family now.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Ontogeny (psychoanalysis), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mature (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) 11:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page[edit]

Hi there, Fan Singh Long. I've only just got your message about the disambiguation pages (I was away over the weekend). I see you've created the psychoanalysis pages for the articles, which looks good. It seems to me (though I may be wrong) that biology might be the primary topic, so should have a hatnote pointing to the psychoanalysis article (and no disambiguation page needed). Is that ok? Let me know what you think. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 16:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Kantian ethics[edit]

Hi there, Fan Singh Long. If you hadn't seen, Kantian ethics has been accepted as a good article - thanks for all your hard work on it. The reviewer also left some very helpful advice on the talk page regarding additional improvements we could make to the article, which are definitely worth looking at. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 15:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zippy,
As you may have noticed I have not been active lately. I logged in today to tell you that the same family situation have re-occured and I am busy with that. I did check into Aristotle and Kant, but I could find nothing useful. Perhaps my memory betrays me, but perhaps I have just not been able to focus my mind unto it. Regardless, I will take some time, but I will return some day.
I'm glad with the GA. Congratulations. You deserve it.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)