User talk:Y-S.Ko

OccultZone (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * /Archive 1

"Alphabetical by author or source" arrangements on theme pages is the long preferred form
I appreciate additions you often make, but please stop changing the structures of theme articles from the long-preferred straightforward and clear organization (based on alphabetization by author or source), into one based upon arrays of eras — many years ago discussions occurred where I believe nearly everyone agreed that the alphabetization arrangements were more clear, definite and easily maintained than any chronological structure, or other structures that might be implemented. Chronological arrangement of quotes and definite works such as books or albums actually works well in pages for individual authors, but that or other arbitrary "sub-theme" categories on ANY pages, can often can be confusing, dubious in many ways, and more conducive to duplications and controversies of various kinds, than alphabetization by author or source. That being the case I do not recommend other structures than alphabetization in the creation of theme articles, for even when pages are as yet small and there is often little need for definite structure of sub-sections, simple straightforward alphabetization is usually more convenient and obvious than a chronology of statements from different authors or sources. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for Kalki. I think Guide to layout said, "quotes should appear sorted alphabetically by author, except where historical development of the subject makes chronological order particularly appropriate." I think, in my cases, chronological order is more appropriate. But, If others think that other way, then I can be wrong. By the way, I read some theme articles (such as Impressionism) that structure is chronological. How do you think Impressionism, and other theme articles whose structure is chronological? Do you think it needs structural change? I think, when chronological order is more appropriate, then it is not bad to use chronological order.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How about Cybernetics, Agronomy, Abstract art], Object-orientation, Enterprise architecture, Chemistry ...? They all use chronlogical structure.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that ideally all the theme pages should be simply alphabetized rather than sorted in any other way, but it has not been a priority of mine to alter pages that exist in other arrangements. I might have time to attend to altering some in the coming months, but probably won't attempt to immediately. I believe that there are a few other matters more urgently requiring my attention even here, and many others elsewhere as well. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think case by case is much more appropriate. …--Y-S.Ko (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have created a category for pages that are chronologically ordered. So far I have found 62. In order to help maintain consistency, I suggest that editors ensure new articles are alphabetically ordered by author or source, and help us to convert existing chronologically ordered articles to alphabetic ordering. ~ Peter1c (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Evolutionary epistemology
Dear User:Y-S.Ko, Thank you for your article Evolutionary epistemology. The Bas van Fraassen quote claims that "Only the successful theories survive—the ones which in fact latched onto the actual regularities in nature." From a sociological point of view, this seems implausible. Many theories, particularly in the social sciences, survive because they are convenient for a ruling class and promote its interests. Are there voices in the dialog about evolutionary epistemology that adopt a more critical view, perhaps a hermeneutic of suspicion rather than a hermeneutic of faith? ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Dear User:Peter1c, van Fraasen quote is attacking no miracles argument for scientific realism. For van Fraassen (as an anti-realist), "success" does not entail (approximate) correspondence to objective reality. (2) If you want a sociological point of view, how about reading Helen Longino's books or her SEP article? These may be imformative. Here is Elizabeth S. Anderson's paper in which, she defended the claim that some scientific research carried out from a feminist perspective is better than (allegedly) value-neutral science. (3) Frankly speaking, it is hard to precisely and objectively define "success" of scientific theories. Thomas Kuhn, in "Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice," listed values that play a role in theory choice (accuracy, simplicity, consistency, scope, fertility). However, he could not find the precise and objective algorithm for theory choice, because sometimes scientists choose simplicity over accuracy, sometimes choose accuracy over simplicity. "Success" is somewhat defined within a (not entirely objective) paradigm. But... (4) Even though it is hard to precisely define "success", and there are sociological pressure on theory choice, I believe that many theories, even in the social sciences, are "successful", at least partially. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Template format and use
Dear Y-S.Ko, thank you for creating the following templates:


 * Template:Social and political philosophy
 * Template:Philosophy of science
 * Template:Ancient Greek schools of philosophy

I have the following comments about template content and use:


 * While it may seem more logical to put the templates in the "see also" section, I argue the templates should be placed after the external links, since this is the established practice on Wikipedia.


 * I argue that the templates should not have redlinks. I understand that the redlinks reflect articles that need to be created, but this information is of interest to editors alone, and belongs in the "talk" space, not the article space.


 * I offer some formatting suggestions in Template:Social and political philosophy and solicit your comments. The horizontal line is necessary to ensure that the template renders below the external links section when there are floating boxes.

Thanks again and best regards, Peter1c (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you! WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

'''If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Charles L. Griswold
A page that you have been involved in editing, Charles L. Griswold, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Votes for deletion/Charles L. Griswold. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. ~ Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)