Talk:Satisfaction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sources[change source]

It was fascinating to read the articles about satisfaction in other languages. Few had citations, unfortunately, or I would have used even more excerpts. Here is a sampling for my own reference, in case there is some way to rework this article to indicate which language a certain concept comes from. Msannakoval (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

From Bulgarian Wikipedia

One can proudly say that they were very satisfied when achieved a difficult goal.

From Dutch Wikipedia

Satisfaction is the attitude one takes towards reality.

Satisfaction must be distinguished from the concept of happiness. There is also a difference between contentment and self-indulgence (or satisfaction-seeking and hedonism).

From French Wikipedia

When satisfaction accompanies the rational assurance of having done what was within the scope of our power, with some degree of success, this dynamic helps sustain a harmonious state within what is mental functioning. Ongoing lack of satisfaction can cause one to feel apathy and depression, especially if we have failed at something many times.

From German Wikipedia

Satisfaction is when you have nothing to complain about.

If you slip into total dissatisfaction, you will end in disaster.

From Hebrew Wikipedia

Satisfaction is a positive feeling that encourages one to want to feel it again.

When a person constantly and continuously does something that gives him no satisfaction, he may feel negative feelings, such as emptiness, boredom, sadness, apathy and sometimes even depression. This is called dissatisfaction.

From Turkish Wikipedia

Dissatisfaction with your condition usually occurs as a result of comparison to the other person's and comes to a negative conclusion.

Interwiki links to Wiktionary not working[change source]

For some unknown reason, interwikilinks to Wiktionary (both Simple and English) were not working. I used external links in the meantime. I hope that this problem will soon be solved. External links just don't look as nice as wikilinks. :( Msannakoval (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just wikified the external links to Wiktionary. I do not know why they weren't working for me before. Honestly, I tried and tried because I know how to wikify and I know that internal links are preferable. I'm just glad that they're fixed now. Msannakoval (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
At least one of the Wiktionary links (self-indulgence) is to a page that don't exist on Simple English Wiktionary. It's best to use as few Wiktionary links as possible, for the same kind of reasons as for enwiki links, but whatever ones are used should be to entries that exist. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No direct links to English wikipedia[change source]

As the flag on the pages says, much of the article is in English which is not simple enough for this wiki. You have covered this up by using direct links to English wiktionary, which is not allowed. Please take those links out. When you do so, you will see the problems of language in the article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Macdonald-ross,
I saw the {{complex}} flag, and wiki-thanked the flagger. :) Thank you, too, for this post here. It helped a lot.
It was a great idea to redlink the enwiki articles. When words are red, it becomes very easy to see just how difficult to read the article still is, from a Simple English perspective. Your suggestion was a really helpful way to show that the article is too complex for this wiki's readers to understand, and I thank you for pointing that out to me.
That said, I will risk sounding like a new editor lecturing an experienced editor and provide some feedback to you now. Respectfully, I would gently remind you to please assume good faith and to please moderate your wording, avoid personal remarks and comment on the content, not on the contributor, in order to avoid being a "biter". What I am referring to, specifically, is this comment: "You have covered this up by using direct links to English wiktionary, which is not allowed."
I had no intention of cover up. This is my second article on this project. I made mistakes. I am learning. Thanks for being patient with me.
I have de-linked the enwiki articles now (see diff) and will work to create decent stubs for those, as User:Rus793 suggested here on my talk page.
One question I have about this, though, is what to do about two distinct words that link to the same article. For example, in the "Related pages" section, I had listed "simple:w:Happiness" and "en:w:Pleasure" because [[Pleasure]] redirected to [[Happiness]]. At first, I wasn't sure how to create a redlink for [[Pleasure]] without triggering the redirect to [[Happiness]]. But I think I figured it out. I found this page and edited it to remove the redirect. It is now the stub "Pleasure". I hope I have done so in accordance with community norms. If not, please let me know what to do differently in the future.
Thank you again, Msannakoval (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I should have worded it passively as "as it is, direct links to English wiktionary mask the need for entries in Simple wikt". Unintentionally I implied motive, which was wrong. Actually, I see we already had an entry for "pleasure" in Simple wikt. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Macdonald-ross. No harm, no foul. I much prefer WP:FAF to WP:STICK. :) Msannakoval (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Emotions common to all mammals[change source]

Our pages on emotions need to remember that humans are mammals. All mammals have much in common including, at least to some extent, their emotions. Of course, in humans the way those emotions affect us is much more complex and varied than with any other species. But we are mammals, and the whole of our behavioural apparatus is basically similar. If you have owned a cat or a dog, you will know from first-hand experience how they also seek satisfaction, and show it very clearly when they get it. By way of contrast, you cannot have a relatonship with a gecko. Its mental apparatus is quite different. Anyway, it is clearly wrong to talk about "human behaviour" when in many cases one could say the same things about chimpanzees or maybe baboons... Speech and complexity make us different, but the differences in emotions are not absolute. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Macdonald-ross,
To be honest, I hadn't really considered non-human emotion in this context, so I thank you for pointing it out. It does make sense, though, now that you mention it. This was an inadvertent and unintentional error of omission, not one of malice toward non-humans, let me assure you. (I've had mammalian animal companions all my life, and I do see what you're saying.) I've added a statement about mammalian emotion (along with a citation) in the Satisfaction as an emotion section. I didn't think it belonged it the lead, but if you think otherwise, feel free to move that sentence where ever it may be more appropriate.
Sincerely yours, Msannakoval (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)