User talk:Hjlipsky

Welcome!

Hello, Hjlipsky, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

WCI peer review.

Overall it gets the main points across, however it would be useful to include more real world examples of how subjectivity impacts our lives. For example when people believe in subjectivity anything that is determined as an objective good or evil isn't considered, while the majority of the population may think something picking up your trash is objectively good that majority opinion wouldn't matter to the subjectivist. Also a section on the objectivism vs subjectivism debate would be useful for people that are interested in philosophy and are new to it. The sources seem to be good ones although more sources from subjectivist philosophers such as Descartes or Berkley would help to give people a better look at subjectivism. Also some cases for and against subjectivity as an idea would be helpful to engage new people into philosophy and help to create a broader discussion on which is more beneficial to society, I'm not saying to come to an answer I'm just saying to create a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munirnayfeh (talk • contribs) 15:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review

Hello. First off, I want to thank you for your honest review of the page and the things you pointed out, I will change because I didn't notice them at first! I was a bit confused about one portion though. For the things that are underlined (in my own sandbox), what parts were taken directly from the literature? I made sure that I used my own words and I don't believe anything isn't changed as per our guidelines. I do really like your advice about separating the sections and as I look at it, it does make a lot of sense for it to be that way, both for the reader and the organization. To answer your question, there really isn't another point of view that should be discussed in that space specifically since there are main pages for each cult of personalities that explains the information, that's why it is left out. Thank you! RSuee (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, by taken directly from the literature, I meant directly quoted. Specifically, under the characteristics heading there were a few different direct quotes used in the old content, and there was one direct quote that you used at the end of your edits.Heather Lipsky (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you mean. Thank you for clarifying! RSuee (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)