User talk:Starghost
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave a message.
[edit] Welcome
Hello Starghost and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. If you want to learn more,
Wikipedia:Bootcamp teaches you the basics quickly,
Wikipedia:Tutorial is more in-depth, and
Wikipedia:Topical index is exhaustive.
The following links might also come in handy:
Glossary
FAQ
Help
Manual of Style
Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Float around for awhile until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. There are also many great committees and groups that focus on particular jobs. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English and Wikipedia:Cleanup for sloppy articles. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy.
There are a few crucial points to keep in mind when editing. Be civil with users, strive to maintain a neutral point of view, verify your information, and show good etiquette like signing your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~ If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page or ask the true experts at Wikipedia:Help desk. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 22:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Olá colega
Se incomoda se eu escrever em português? Queria agradecer por sua atenção naquele comentário que fiz sobre o artigo "Brazil". É realmente uma pena que uma iniciativa tão interessante quanto a Wikipedia não tenha tendências gerais menos "mentalóides".
Também moro em São Paulo, mas ainda estou no período de cursinho, que não deu pra evitar... cheguei a passar pela primeira fase da Fuvest prestando Filosofia (não era bem o que eu queria, escolhi meio em cima), mas na segunda não deu. Agora estou decidindo o que prestar. Você está gostando do curso de Ciências Sociais?
Enfim, estou escrevendo porque notei que temos interesses (e possivelmente opiniões) muito parecidos. Coisa rara de encontrar, acho. Quem sabe não possamos conversar mais qualquer dia desses.
Falou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2 (talk • contribs)
- Olhe a resposta na sua talk page. Também aproveitei para adicionar informações de contato na minha userpage.PHF
[edit] External link on World Cup poll
Here's America's response: [1]. Piet 08:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, The Onion and Uncyclopedia are my two favourite sources of misinformation. Help me cope with the horrors of the real world. Piet 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please help on Astronomy
Posted by →LzyGenius 12:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.
[edit] You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner
Davodd 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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 ForteTuba, 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 12:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner
[edit] Secular Ethics
Hey Starghost, noticed you started the Secular Ethics AID improvement drive. I don't think the article is going to get enough votes to be part of the official AID, but I'm definetly interested in helping to improve the article. If you can help and we can get a few others to join, we could get a team together to bring it up to the standard the topic deserves. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. -Chrisrivers 16:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message, in total agreeance with the collecting of material first. I think we also need to define the terms of "secular ethics". By such do we mean ethics that are based solely on atheistic principles, or do we include "secular ethics" to include ethical works that come from any source except those that come directly from religious revelation? For instance can the ethical work of Deists (who beleive in a non-interventionist God and thus base ethics on logic and reason) be included? I am in favour of the latter approach and generally defining "Secular Ethics" as those being "Ethics based on solely human logic and reason, and not derived from religious revelation or supernatural guidance".
On the practical side I am on holiday from college until late September so I have quite a bit of free time on my hands, once it has been decided what should be included I am happy to do research required. I am familiar with the works of Nietzsche so I am comfortable to go through that. I was reading your user page and we seem to have some good points of commonality (I am 19, going to college, studying Social Sciences) so hopefully the collaboration will be a good one. I am hoping we can get this up to featured article status, it definetely deserves it! --Chrisrivers 01:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hey good include, I am going to beef up the introduction and create some placeholders for issues relating to secular ethics. I think we should start by having a really good introduction to the concept of "Secular Ethics" as part of Moral Philosophy and then begin to explore moral philosophers who explored ethics from a secular point of view, (such as John Stuart Mill). We should also have a section on the Tenets of Secular Ethics, and then a section on criticism of secular ethics. Thus we have the following tabular layout:
- Brief Introduction
- Tenets of Secular Ethics (with references to philosophers or works where appropriate)
- Key philosophers and philosophical texts
- Criticism
- Footnotes
- Hey good include, I am going to beef up the introduction and create some placeholders for issues relating to secular ethics. I think we should start by having a really good introduction to the concept of "Secular Ethics" as part of Moral Philosophy and then begin to explore moral philosophers who explored ethics from a secular point of view, (such as John Stuart Mill). We should also have a section on the Tenets of Secular Ethics, and then a section on criticism of secular ethics. Thus we have the following tabular layout:
-
- Of course we can add more into the table but this seems like a logical outline. This will also make it easier to flesh out the contect of it, and keep the structure relatively simple for the lay-reader. Hope that sounds okay, I'm taking the liberty of making some changes and then we can heavily edit from there. --Chrisrivers 12:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Just done some restructuring and fleshing out of some of the sections. Ordered the article closely to what I have described above. Still needs work improving the philophers and philosophical works sections, I am in two minds as to whether we should write about them from the point of view of secular ethics or simply reference them as secular ethicists or humanists etc. It would be a great deal of work to explore all of the philosophers in detail and then write the information. An example of what could be done is shown the Utilitarianism example; we reference utilitarianism and then say it is part of a larger article? --Chrisrivers 13:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hey thanks for the suggestions. We got some edits from SomeHuman which was useful. On the points you raised: (1) Good idea on referencing other articles, we need to decide what other types of moral philosophy are suitable for inclusion in the article. (2) Totally agree with what your saying, even though I would add that most secular ethicists beleive their moral framework to be morally superior to that from religious sources, I admit that actually putting it in the article is probably a little risky. I think in terms of things that need to be done now;
- I think we need to beef up the core tenets.
- Increase the number of the sources under the key philosophers.
- Probably find more argument/sources for Criticism.
Anything you can add to this would be great. Thanks --Chrisrivers 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Starghost, I took the liberty to copy Chrisrivers' entries on your and my talk pages and your entries on his and my talk pages, to the talk page on 'Secular ethics' in the section "Preliminary discussions amongst users Starghost, Chrisrivers, SomeHuman". You may wish to check whether I got the proper order and all is to your liking or not. I continued the discussion there and invite you and Chrisrivers to do the same: it's easier to follow. SomeHuman 2006-07-31 03:28 (UTC)
[edit] atheism wikiproject
HI Starghost, I nabbed this nifty info box from the Digimon wikiproject, we could turn it into a good tool. Right now it has digimon stuff on it, but that can give us ideas, and help us out. Heres the template: [[2]]. If you could tell as many people as possible, that would be great. Perhaps we could replace the existing one at some point. Somerset219 08:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner
Draicone (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Howdy
Hi Starghost. It looks as if I share most of your likes and dislikes, except that I think hippes are mostly harmless good guys, if rather misguided on the issue of drugs. Peace and free love are better ideas than right-wing Christian "family values" and spreading the word of Jesus through war anyway.
The secular ethics page actually looks pretty good as it stands. What did you have in mind? What do you see as its shortcomings?
-Neural 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unimpressed
So, on the critique of atheism talk page you say "I agree. Anyway, feel free to create the article.", but now you're voting to delete it. Frankly, I'm having difficulty interpreting that as anything but bad faith. Cordially, Gabrielthursday 21:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you approved the spin off at the Talk:Critique of atheism page and then took an opposing position on the AfD page. You admit you didn't really agree with the spin off- even though you claimed that was largely what you meant by "move".
- On a brighter note, I think that for two editors who so very clearly get under each others' skin, I'm pleased that we've been able to be cordial. Gabrielthursday 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose Environmentalism as this week's WP:AID winner
AzaBot 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alexandre Frota
Hi. I notice you've made edits in the past to the Alexandre Frota article. I've expressed several concerns about the article on its Talk page; please take a moment to read them and help edit the article to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or it may be deleted.
(If your edits were strictly of the maintenance variety, and this information doesn't interest you, please pardon any perceived intrustion.)
Thanks.—Chidom talk 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose Jupiter as this week's WP:AID winner
AzaBot 14:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Help Prevent Article Deletion: Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs
Hello, I'm leaving you this message because I notice you've made at least one significant edit to the Wikipedia article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. The article has recently been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia, and there is considerable support for that position.
I'm hoping you'll help me support the continued existence of the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article by registering a keep vote on the article's request for deletion page. The article contains some good information, and represents an unobtrusive way to present notable minority viewpoints about dinosaurs that cannot reasonably be elaborated on in the parent article. It shouldn't be deleted simply because the viewpoints it presents aren't "scientific."
Thanks! Killdevil 03:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose Universe as this week's WP:AID winner
AzaBot 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:ACID winner
AzaBot 12:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose Black hole as this week's WP:ACID winner
AzaBot 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
