This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vsmith (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 11 August 2015 (→Evolutionary psychology: unsigned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:52, 11 August 2015 by Vsmith (talk | contribs) (→Evolutionary psychology: unsigned)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Happiness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Psychology B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Philosophy: Ethics B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Happiness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
What's with the weird guy with birds?
Is this a joke? It's pretty fucking ridiculous.
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Furthermore, there are no women prominently featured on this page. In fact, the only women present at all are two (debatably three) kind of, sort of visible in the back rows of the Annapolis graduation. Obviously, neglecting to portray happiness as exhibited by a whole half of the world's population is quite silly. If this article is going to contain illustrative photographs, they should be better than what's now up. Here are some nice options: <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Rebecca_L._Felton.png>, <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Bride_and_bridesmaid_happy.jpg>, <https://secure.flickr.com/photos/julien_harneis/590028480/>, <https://secure.flickr.com/photos/dfid/7348237818/>, <https://secure.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3885634615/>. 71.235.191.162 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Western Perspective
The article, as often, is clearly biased and written from a Western Anglo-American perspective, from start to finish.
The first paragraph cites hello the US Declaration of Independence and the "unalienable right for happiness" but we all know that this was written cynically at the same time that the Anglohgejkdbfk;sj hjlfsjldhfjksdj0
- Specific suggestions for changes? --NeilN 23:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indian philosopher Kautilya wrote in his Nitisutras 2-7 that the root of happiness is ultimately the service to elders (vRddhopasevA). http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/chANakyasUtra.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.188.176 (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
happiness Geliepter Fuhrer (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- No actionable request made. --NeilN 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
more weblinks
- German happiness researcher and writer Sebastian Luetzig about -be happy in everyday life- with articles and blog] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.152.154 (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Kahneman
I am surprised that Daniel Kahneman's work has not been considered in this discussion of happiness. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could tackle this. Hans Pitsch Hanspitsch (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Failure to adequately characterize Happiness
I'm sorely disappointed with the treatment of Happiness. First, if Happiness be a state of mind, and I think all would agree with that, then no one has presented even the properties of Happiness. Properties would include a list of the gradient of affective states, autonomic responses, behavioral responses, the satiation of biological drives to appease impulses of dissatisfaction with the present psycho-physical state. All this historical presentation just muddies the waters and explains nothing. They all focus on what may lead to happiness, not what happiness is and how it's state is established in the mind. 173.25.55.24 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Dalton Seymour 8/24/14
Online Tools for Measuring Happiness/Well-Being
Emotional intelligence and health are perhaps best handled when the person seeking it is able to direct, take decisions and monitor the experience at frequent intervals. With tremendous advancements in our understanding of psychology and technology, we now have the wherewithal to conceive and design online and self-controlled mechanisms that help individuals become more aware and conscious of their nature, introspect about where they want to go by asking important questions of themselves, and continuously assess their ability to cope with the complexities of life.
Freedomsway started very early in this field of work and realized the need to use technology for improving the wellbeing of the world more than anything else. Freedomsway provides a pioneering and yet simple tool called MAP (Meta-Analysis Profile) which is designed to urge, encourage and motivate individuals to pose provocative questions that may open up a new line of thought or make one conscious of one's challenges and strengths. It subsequently provides an engaging visual output that indicates how the individual fared in the most important dimensions of life. The output provided and the customized suggestions that accompany the individual's results are expected to inspire her to improve her wellbeing by adopting specific habits and ideas.
The tool is a powerful manifestation of the quote “If an egg is broken by outside force, life ends. If broken by inside force, life begins. Great things always begin from inside.” – Jim Kwik, learning expert
MAP is a scientifically designed tool and has been examined and reviewed by neuroscience experts and psychologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimpal (talk • contribs) 06:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
What is happiness?
It is a complicate question...which depends on the state of the moment. You could answer at the question or read different answer here: happySMIP.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.181.14 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Different Meanings of Happy
Happiness can be related to excitement. Excitement doesn't always mean happy, but can also mean happy in a sense that your situation is bad, but some thing happy finally happens.Awsome81672 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi I am Isha, I love reading WIKIPEDIA can you write about What a Kite Sees and Hears?Please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.0.207.85 (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Evolutionary psychology
Can someone put in the evolutionary psychology reason for happiness? Why is the page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.250.118 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm interested, but what did you have in mind? Not sure what evolutionary psychology references you are thinking of here. Kingshowman (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
Nietzsche
Flyer22 is wading out of her depths and has exited the kiddy pool in reverting my inclusion of Nietzsche to the philosophy of happiness section of the article. Nietzsche is obviously enormously relevant to this section, and it is an embarrassing omission to not include him along with Aristotle, Mill, Augustine, and Aquinas. Read the links I've provided and you will see they back up everything I say, which represents the current academic consensus on Nietzsche's philosophical views on happiness. Stop reverting my edits without reason because of your petty, childish vendetta against me, supplying absolutely spurious reasons in the comment box. Thanks! Best of luck to you. Kingshowman (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
- My response: Yes, this here. Your erratic, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Personal attacks, rantings and talk page madness show that it won't be long until that indefinite block happens. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you are not indefinitely blocked first, I will type up a good WP:ANI case against you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
What does this have to do with my criticism that you had no reason to revert my sourced addition of a paragraph on Nietzsche where many other philosophers of comparable stature are discussed? Whether or not the personal attack was unnecessary, you had no reason to revert my edit. And what is the problem if I rant on my talk page? It's my talk page. Kingshowman (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
I don't follow what you're referring to with "this here". What is an ANI noticeboard case, and what is exactly is your complaint?Kingshowman (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
- Your editing is poor, plain and simple. That was my reason for reverting you. You don't listen to anyone about how poor your editing is (whether we point out your unsourced additions, poorly sourced additions, WP:Lead violations, WP:Synthesis, WP:Editorializing, WP:Activism or whatever else); it does not align with Misplaced Pages's ways. And you WP:Edit war to maintain that poor editing. Your edits to the David Hume article consist of such editing, and I am tempted to revert you there and assist Theroadislong in doing so. "This here" is what I stated in that WP:Edit summary. And if you want to know what WP:ANI is, go ahead and see for yourself. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Fine. Since you're so rude, hostile, and have such an obviously meagre education on topics you chose to write on, and delight in acting like a thorn in my side, pointlessly wasting my work and time on all of my edits, I'm finished editing here. I'm going to revert all my edits myself since the great representative of Misplaced Pages Flyer22 has decided they are unwanted.. I'm done with this low-quality encyclopedia and will invest no more time in improving it. Enjoy your plethora of c-class articles, which cover about 90 percent of the topics.Kingshowman (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
- I highly doubt you know much about the topics I actually write on, such as sexology and anatomy. Having articles on my WP:Watchlist and reverting and/or tweaking problematic edits to them does not meant that I "write on" such topics. I have many articles on my WP:Watchlist. I am also a WP:Patroller. And I have WP:Good articles to my name. I don't mean to be rude or hostile to you; I only mean for you to actually read and comprehend the WP:Policies and guidelines that you are pointed to and to adhere to them. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
As a note for you, I deleted my edits to the David Hume article since they were so obviously "poor, plain and simple." Strangely enough, they got restored (as did my contributions to nearly all the other pages that you found so purely and simply "poor.") Obviously, I'm very interested in hearing more of your assessment of the Hume article since doubtlessly you've based it on your reading of Hume rather than just spouting shit out of your ass. Kingshowman (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
- Regarding this edit, Pgallert reverted you because you removed his edits as well. And it seems that he is willing to let your edits stay for improvement. Regarding this edit, I don't know why C.Fred reverted you, but he is a WP:Patroller and capitalized letters that include one or more insults by a red-linked user account tend to lead WP:Patrollers to revert. I assume that's also why Vsmith, who is also a WP:Patroller, reverted you. I reverted Vsmith (followup note here). I don't know why Stemoc reverted you. But your other removals are still removed, and this is better discussed at your talk page. Not here. The various warnings you have received show that I am not "spouting shit out of ass." Flyer22 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
You are such a fundamentally dishonest, disengenuous person without the integrity to even admit when she is obviously wrong. My Hume edits were regarded as an improvement, contra the wisdom you tried to dispense to me. Likewise, my "landlord" edits were restored. Likewise my edits to the "Coal" page were restored. As were others. So go fuck off. Kingshowman (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, you fail to listen to what has been stated to you. I doubt you did any research into what a WP:Patroller is, such as their use of WP:Twinkle, WP:Huggle and/or WP:STiki and how your loud, insult-packed edit summaries would naturally cause any WP:Patroller to revert you. A person restoring your edits does not always mean that your edits were improvements. In this case, it means that your edits were largely WP:Disruptive. Do cease talking to me unless necessary. I do indeed intend to take you to WP:ANI if no one indefinitely WP:Blocks you first. You are not suited for Misplaced Pages in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
My primary editing has been at the David Hume page. You claimed my edits there were "poor, pure and simple." Yet when I deleted them, they were magically restored. Not by "Twinkle" or "Huggle" but by a live-honest-to-God editor who said not to throw out the edits. So they were indeed regarded as an improvement. Contra your opinion, which you provided no argument to back up. If you'd like, I can delete them again, and we can see what happens this time. Why is admitting you were wrong so difficult for you? Kingshowman (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
And you should perhaps finish your education before you start throwing so many insults around and ignorantly opining on subjects well beyond your ken. Kingshowman (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)kingshowman
Pgallert, thanks for this. As you can see above, by stating "Pgallert reverted you because you removed his edits as well. And it seems that he is willing to let your edits stay for improvement.", I noted similarly of your reasons for reverting Kingshowman. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Read it and weep: "I believe the prose added to the lead of Hume indeed improved the article ...the new prose captures much better what Hune is about than what was there before." Please try reading Hume, Nietzsche, or Freud before you comment on them in the future. Enjoying my day of triumph and my freedom from ever editing this encyclopedia again! So long, edit goon!----kingshowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 August 2015
Categories: