User talk:Robert Daoust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is on my watchlist. If you write on it, then I will read you. Robert Daoust

---

Contents 1 Collaboration 2 Image copyright problem with Image:250px-The_Scream.jpg 3 I am interested 4 suffering 5 Emotion in psychology 6 Habit (in psychology) 7 Sorry to have alienated you 8 CFD for Category:Emotion 9 Ralph G.H. Siu 10 Essay and offer 11 Pain 12 McGill Pain Questionnaire 13 Edit summaries 14 The opposite of epicaricacy 15 Compassion as a virtue

[edit] Collaboration

Robert, I stumbled across the article on suffering and your request for collaborators to join you in editing it. While, after reading your website, I haven't had your lifelong fascination with suffering, I would like to collaborate with you. My personal interest is in philosophical anthropology and therefore suffering as an aspect of the human condition. Equipoise 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well! How shall we begin? Do you have any suggestion? Robert Daoust 06:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Robert, shall we take this to the suffering talk page? I've made initial comments there. Looking forward to working with you, and anyone else who joins. Equipoise 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:250px-The_Scream.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:250px-The_Scream.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am interested

in getting people to vote about this picture which was just removed from the sacrifice article, so am contacting some of the folks who have contributed to the page. Please consider taking a few minutes, looking it over, and voicing an opinion. Thanks. Carptrash 04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you fo stopping by and leaving an opinion. Carptrash 15:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Here is a painting on a nearby rock that watched the whole scene, but who is not, unfortunately, talking. Carptrash 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Robert Daoust 17:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suffering

hiii Robert i dont know wat is the wrong with the article now, it leads correctly to the article i made in the arabic wikipedia, and in arabic معاناة=ألم like pain and suffering --Mmustafa 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

hii robert i made now a link in Pain and nociception to the same arabic article, may be in the future i will make a seperate article, and thank u very much for help --Mmustafa 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotion in psychology

Thank you for your involvement in bringing some order to the category emotion. I see that you are removing many articles from the category, but please remember that the present meaning of 'emotion' as a category is as a matter of fact 'anything closely related to affective states and processes'. As you must have seen, the category might soon be renamed, and several new subcategories might be created. So, your work could probably be more useful now if you would take part to the discussion going on about the category emotion, rather than removing inappropriate links: we need to create more appropriate ones, like perhaps Category:Religion (affective aspects), if you see what I mean.... Robert Daoust 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be a badly named category as so many inappropriate articles are in it. The link you sent, Category:Religion (affective aspects) is red-linked however. Also, I am a psychologist and not really interested in religion. I understand that the affective components for religion may be much different than in Psychology and so Category:Religion (affective aspects) seems like a needed category to separate the two very different disciplines. Where is this discussion taking place? Regards, --Mattisse 23:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion main page is at Category_talk:Emotion. The link above is red because I just created it as an example. I understand your concern with psychology vs religion, but categories in Wikipedia do not form a tree: see Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories_do_not_form_a_tree. Thus disciplines may be intermingled... Robert Daoust 23:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Habit (in psychology)

I could have used you when the speedy-delete police were after me when I was starting the Habits article. I think it's OK, but there are bunch of "watchers". I would like it if you could take a look at a new stub I started for Valence (psychology). The underconstruction tag is there to ward off evil spirits from the speedy-delete squad. In my copious free time I will look at the categories thing and undiscussed, unilateral categorization changes. DCDuring 17:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. Do not miss http://polorovereto.unitn.it/~colombetti/docs/GC_AppraisingValence05.pdf. --Robert Daoust 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I liked the article. I extracted a couple of points and put it in the See Also. I'll probably pull some specific footnotes. Thanks a bunch. DCDuring 22:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to have alienated you

Truly I am. And I apologize for being too direct and most likely impolite. It is just that I believe you were/are misguided in your plan and it would have been catastrophe for categories in Psychology. But actually, that would not be a horrible outcome, as it might wake Psychologists up to the horrible mess of articles considered "Psychology" and the tremendous number of uncategorized articles resulting from editors misunderstanding the category system, believing it to be a tree and therefore adding the category "Psychology" unnecessarily when it is already in the super category.

Again, I apologize for being harsh. But just me, one person, is not enough to stop your crusade. There are hundreds and hundreds of people who would be involved with your plan if they knew about it. I only found out accidentally by taking on a Wikipedia cleanup task. You need to publish your intentions far and wide. If you did as you propose regarding category renaming, it would have a huge effect so many, many more people need to be notified of your plan. Regards, --Mattisse 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuses and encouragements well received. Thanks. --Robert Daoust 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD for Category:Emotion

Hi, I've just made an alternative proposal regarding the renaming of Category:Emotion, and I thought you might like to comment before the discussion closes. Thanks. Cgingold 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph G.H. Siu

Thanks for your message regarding the panetics article's deletion. I wondered if we might be able to create a decent article on Ralph G.H. Siu? Let me know if you're interested. --John (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You said you agree with the closing administrator: I can understand you, one or two sources of notability are still missing... I believe they will be found soon. As about Ralph Siu, I am not available, but that article has definitely to be done. In any event, I will give you notice when I hear of someone doing it. Thanks. --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the articles to User:Robert Daoust/Ralph G.H. Siu and User:Robert Daoust/Panetics. Keep in mind that unless the issues raised in the AfDs are addressed, the articles will likely be re-deleted. Good luck. Tijuana Brass (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much. I'll make sure everything will be done appropriately. --Robert Daoust (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the new page: Ralph Siu. --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that linking to the Judge article/page is going to help win favors - I understand the frustration in having your work deleted, but the guidelines of verifiability and notability exist to filter out content which isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. It's a tough line to walk, and editors often err on the side of deletion (for better or for worse). However, on an article that you have a personal stake in, pointing others to something like this can cause bad feelings. Assume good faith on the part of editors, even when it may seem otherwise, and you'll have an easier time recruiting help.

At any rate, the improvements are a good start on addressing the AfD issues. There's a better case for notability here, but it could use additional references that aren't related to panetics or appear to come from Siu himself. Maybe something from the federal government regarding to his appointment under Johnson? It'd help flesh things out. Also, including ISBN numbers for Siu's books will help; you can refer to the bibliography at Buckminster Fuller for a good example of how it's done.

Oh, by the way, don't take the "marginally notable" comment personally. I tend to interpret the guideline strictly; sometimes the brief nature of edit summaries don't allow a fuller explanation. Sorry if it came off in a condescending manner. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all. --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Essay and offer

Hi Robert,

Checked you're contribs and you're at around 700! Ya big noob :) So I thought I'd offer an essay I wrote for new editors (User:WLU/Generic sandbox) and any help that you may want with editing and whatnot. I like helping people out, it's fun. WLU (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings to you WLU, and thank you so much! I like your essay: there is always something to learn... I offer back to you my best collaborative effort. Cheers! --Robert Daoust (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! If you're accepting recommendations, I'd say install WP:POPUPS or User:Wikidudeman's hodgepodge. Tools are not invaluable, but they are incredibly handy. It's up to you, but they're insanely handy for editing. If nothing else than for the preview, which allows you to see if a wikilink ends up being a redirect. Or any tool really, they're all good at different tasks. `WLU (talk)

Thanks. I do use popups for looking at links without going to pages, but I can't see any editing function that I would use somewhat regularly! --Robert Daoust (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pain

Actually, I can source that: Try this news article], which is in response to [this claim]. The IASP-style definitions of pain specifically require a neocortex so you can "understand" the nociception. I'm not saying that this definition or that definition is the One True Defintion™, or that every scientist agrees with the IASP definition. (Clearly some of them don't.)

What's interesting to me is the application of the definitions. What seems to happen when people talk about pain is this: "I believe the IASP-style definition, and according to that, fish don't feel pain. Therefore it's scientifically proven that fish always live a pain-free life." I'm sure you can see the fallacy here.

My two goals for the pain article are to show the diversity of definitions for pain (including a very short section that begins with {{Main|suffering}} instead of just a hatnote) and to show how the applications of these definitions affect the world. So IASP-style scientists says that fish can't experience pain; PETA will (I'm guessing) say that they avoid situations that would stimulate the nociceptors, and therefore fish clearly do experience pain. We need all views represented here.

And this talk about fish has reminded me that it's time for this omnivore to eat her lunch.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in IASP definition requires a neocortex, except in the opinion of a few scientists. Pain specialists who studied pain in various animal species do attribute pain to fishes. Sources to come, if you wish. But I agree much with your goals. We need all views. --Robert Daoust (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McGill Pain Questionnaire

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of McGill Pain Questionnaire, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: McGill pain index. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Most of your last edits to pain have had "modifications" as their edit summary. I would suggest that perhaps you ought to be a bit more specific. JFW | T@lk 06:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. For the major intensive revision that I did, it became impracticable to specify the nature or motivation of each edit. It's all done now, so my edit summaries should come back to normal:-). --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The opposite of epicaricacy

The debate on the article has been rather heated, and has been a waste of resources and time. I disagree with your interpretation, but hope we all walk away from this with no hard feelings. Cordially, --evrik ^(talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the olive branch. Waste of resources and time indeed, except that the debate might allow us to learn how to deal with similar issues in the future. Amicably, --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compassion as a virtue

Thanks for that, Robert. You're right.

Probably in the back of my mind was a reported statement of the Buddha. Anananda, his secretary, is said to have asked him, "Would it be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness & compassion is a part of our practice? " To which the Buddha replied, "No. It would not be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness & compassion is part of our practice. It would be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness & compassion is all of our practice."

I shall try and find a reference for what I suspected at the time was a somewhat audacious assertion - most likely in the writings of the comparative religionist Karen Armstrong.

P.S. Your advocacy of the need for a recognized discipline called algonomy is important & wonderful. Thank you also for your user page, which I have bookmarked; I'm sure I shall find its tips most useful in the future.

Regards, Wingspeed (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. May our collaboration on Wikipedia be fruitful. Regards, --Robert Daoust (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just thought: What if we change it to: "Ranked a great virtue in numerous philosophies, compassion is considered in all the major religious traditions as among the greatest of virtues."? That tones it down. Wingspeed (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)