Talk:Conatus

message: Citations. If you're going to have a list of references and cite with name and page number, please use the Harvard style. 
:Whoops... I was confusing MLA and Harvard... I'll implement the standardized Harvard templates tomorrow.
::Done! -- Rmrfstar 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good. Vassyana 12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that all of your objections have been addressed as of now. -- Rmrfstar 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA (On Hold) 

message: #Well-written. The writing is clear and fairly concise. It is clean and provides a reader an excellant overview of the topic. 
#Factually accurate and verifiable. The article is well-cited and provides an accurate presentation of the topic. There is room for improvement. The article could have a greater number of references to provide a broader coverage of available sources and to provide information to flesh out the article more.
#Broad in coverage. Certainly covers all the bases and gives a solid impression of the breadth of the subject. Again, there is still room for improvement. Short sections could be expanded. Additional sources could provide additional interpretations and viewpoints for the article. 
#Neutral point of view. No problems at all. The presentation is interesting but neutral.
#Stable. The article is stable.
#Images. Good use of images, but perhaps reconsider selection and placement to better compliment the article. 
Overall, well within GA standards, but definately room for improvement. If someone was looking to bring this up to 1.0 or FA status, I would recommend the above mentioned improvements and a peer review. Good job on the article. Vassyana 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review (Passed) 

message: I, Cryptic, will add notes here as I read through the article.
Lede
* This sentence, Often the concept is associated with God's will in a pantheist view of Nature, as Spinoza used it, though not always. is obnoxiously worded.
::Done.
Classical origins
* What exactly is ὁρμήν? This is the English wiki, not the Greekish wiki.
::I don't know... it's Greek to me!
* Cicero's full name is given as a caption to the picture, but not in the prose. Perhaps you should consider putting the full name next to Diogenes Laertius for consistency, and replacing the caption with information about the medium and origin of that sculpture.
::OK.
* There's no time frame whatsoever. The reader should be familiar with the basic time line of these definitions without having to click the links to the philosophers' articles.
::Done.
* "impetus" should be replaced with a more commonly used word. Wikilinking it doesn't help, as impetus is just a disambig with definition that really makes sense here.
::I used a different word because impetus happens to be a technical term used elswhere in a different sense within the article.
* The last paragraph just boggles me. Is it about science or romance? 
::Metaphysics, a mixture of the two.
In Teh Psychzor
* Missing a quotation mark after threatens this peace. (fixed)
* I truly loathe the second quote. Who said it? Schmitter? Given that it's such a large and dense chunk of text, it should either be set off as a block quote or paraphrased.
::I separated it from the text.
In Fizyx
* Instead of linking to the archnemesis impetus, why not try Inertia#Theory_of_impetus?
::Why not, indeed?
* The plural conatuses is used for the first time here. I had been under the impression that conatus (which, by the way, needs to be italicized consistently) was not a quantifiable noun. 
::I reworded this.
* No comma needed in springs, and bladders for example. (fixed)
* I before e except after c. (fixed)
Spinach
* Specify!
* Wtf is conatus sese conservandi?
::I have defined this in the article.
* Use a consistent tense. You flip-flopped from he used the term to he most often uses.
:I believe I have fixed this.
* as Descartes had before even him yarg. I had to read that one 5 or 6 times to understand it.
::Better?
I'd keep going, but I have no attention span. It's time to watch porn. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few comments 

message: *Very small point: Note 57 lists "Vico 1988", but the date listed in the Further Reading section for this reference is that of its original publication (1710), and does not list the date of republication. Chubbles 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I fixed this. -- Rmrfstar 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad reference

message: Well, since im ne w, that 12.156.171.2 dude, is an IP from The Jesse H. Jones Rotary House International, which is an Hotel. So, what do we do now?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by II MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk • contribs) 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He vandalized the page seven times. That's too much. He has been warned. No worries, he's temporarily blocked. --Efe (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: wait.. ive been warned? For what? Didnt i take the correct procedures to stop this user?II MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, This situation has been fixed. Section Closed.II MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Vandalism

message: This is ridiculous: "After its formulation in ancient Greece, successive philosophers to adopt the term put their own personal twist on the concept, each developing the term differently such that it now has no concrete and universally accepted definition.[3]" It's obviously a Latin word. It may be traced back to a concept in Greek, but the way it stands this just sounds stupid. So I'm just deleting these sentences and someone with more info should come fix it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.131.40 (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I don't see at all how those sentences are ridiculous: conatus is not just a Latin word. Philosophers have, throughout the ages, actively and passively redefined it to fix their theories. Do you not like the wording? And don't delete anything: comment it out, please. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is that although the concept of conatus may have been formulated in ancient Greece, the term conatus, being Latin, clearly wasn't used then. The Greeks would have called it something else. Anon., 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh... I think I fixed this. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The origin of the name needn't be relevant to the discussion of the concept itself. For example, there are many articles on various aboriginal cultures. Few of those cultures used the words that are used in those articles to describe them, since they are mostly Western derived words - should those articles have all the references to aboriginal culture prior to the arrival of the Western explorers removed? Adacore (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, the etymology is relevant. The Latin was used to translate the Greek, etc.  -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculousness

message: The Latin cōnātus comes from the verb cōnor, which is usually translated into English as, "to endeavor": Shouldn't that be either "conari" or "I endeavor"?
45ossington (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is my fault.  I switched it from the infinitive to the present active indicative 1st singular, in order to link to the Wiktionary entry (I figured a discussion on words might benefit from a dictionary's perspective).  On Wiktionary Latin (as well as Ancient Greek) verbs have the main entry at the PAI1S form, following the tradition of nearly all other dictionaries of the language(s).  The entry for cōnārī simply says "present active infinitive of cōnor."  It does link to the main entry, but it's an extra step for the user.  However, I must admit that putting "I endeavour" might throw off the average user, who might wonder about the inflected form, being used to an infinitive for a simple definition.  As I rarely edit Wikipedia, I'll leave this in the hands of more experienced editors here to do as they think best.  Sorry about the trouble.  Atelaes (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin query

message: The sentence "In systems theory and the sciences in general, the concept of a conatus may be related to the phenomenon of emergence, whereby complex systems may spontaneously form from a multiplicity of more simple structures."  (emphasis is mine) is ambiguous, because "more" could be taken as qualifying either "simple" or "structures". Does "more simple structures" mean "structures that are more simple" or "more structures, which are simple"? If the former, rephrase as "simpler structures"; if the latter, rephrase as "more, simple structures" or, better, "further simple structures". — Paul G (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I changed "more simple" to "simpler", and the sentence is much better now. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous sentence 

message: Wouldn't a reference to Meme be suited to be included in a pontential See also section of the article? Raborg (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There are a lot of memes! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memes 

message: Is this word always pronounced with an "ei" sound for the "a"? It certainly isn't pronounced that way in Latin, where it's a long "a", but this article doesn't mention that, or the possibility (I don't know how widespread it might be) that some English speakers pronounce it with a long "a" too. Would it be excessively pedantic to expand the pronunciation bit so that it covers both ways of saying it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.154.79 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem odd to be applying the Great Vowel Shift to a not-so-commonly-heard Latin term.  Do we have a citation either way, though?  I'd say include whatever we can support with references ... and, of course, nothing more. JIMp talk·cont 01:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm missing something here, but surely we don't need a citation for an IPA pronunciation that is readily available in online dictionaries. Sunray (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  Especially considering the obviously non-Latin nature of the pronunciation we're giving.  As for its being readily available, you pointed us to Dictionary.com, Sunray, but neither AHD nor Cambridge have an entry. I've added the ref you gave, if you think it doesn't belong, delete it. JIMp talk·cont 04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The pronunciation of the word, if listed, should be that of Latin. Considering the extreme variety with which this word was probably pronounced, I say we should remove the pronunciation guide (and with it the reference). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. JIMp talk·cont 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: This sentence is part of the intro:
The concept may be expanded and split into separate things for definition by the mind and body, or even consolidated as with centrifugal force ending at inertia.
Please, what does it mean? Rracecarr (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The version you read was recently introduced. I changed it back. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  huh? 

message: " Around 1700, Telesius and Campanella extended the ancient Greek notions and applied them to all objects, animate and inanimate.[8]"
:Around 1700 is improbable since Telesius lived in the 16th century and Campanella died 10 1639.
Alsichcan (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice catch! Probably 1600 was meant. Unfortunately, I don't have the reference on hand... I'll change "1700" to "later", for now, and leave a comment in the text. Thanks. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1700? 

message: "This stability required to maintain life can also refer to the notion of homeostasis developed by Claude Bernard which later inspired the field of cybernetics."
was removed for a lack of source. Feel free to check the existing page on homeostasis and pull references from there since I think the 2 concepts are really rather close. Since Im not familiar with conatus though I let you decide, especially since my addition was instantly commented out.
PS : I don't really understand why the next sentence on Jung still stays without providing sources.  
Utopiah (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think homeostatis and conatus are much related. The claim about Jung is not very controversial; actually it's rather obvious. I'll comment it out, though, just to be safe. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeostasis 

message: Newton before 1679 believed in conatus too. This should be included in the article. See p. 65 of Cohen's guide to the Principia (in the 1999 edition from U. California Press, bound with his translation of the Principia), as well as Planetary Astronomy from the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics, Part A by Reni Taton, p. 235ff. JKeck (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should not in-depth discuss every use of the term, but only the most significant cases. As I remember, Newton's conception of conatus was rather derivative of that of Hobbes, Descartes, etc. See the last section of "In Descartes". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton before 1679 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Can someone verify if that information is correct? The entrance for Diogenes Laertius in the section "Classical origins" states that he lived circa 235 BCE., I believe that the 'B' is an error, being it correctly "circa 235 CE".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.233.60 (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diogenes Laertius c. 235 BCE? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Conatus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107113953/http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dmjphi/Main/Papers/Hobbesian%20Mechanics.pdf to http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dmjphi/Main/Papers/Hobbesian%20Mechanics.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified