Get our free book (in Spanish or English) on rainwater now - To Catch the Rain.

User talk:Keshavboddula

From Appropedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hi Keshavboddula,

Welcome to the Appropedia wiki. Please make yourself at home! If you need a general wiki-tutorial, see the main help page (or the more in-depth one on WikiEducator).

Check your preferences and be sure you verify your email address and turn on email notification if you'd like it -- you can find out when your talk page, or any page on your watchlist, is modified. You may want to upload a photo or information about yourself to your userpage (which is at User:Keshavboddula).

If you have a particular interest or project in mind, go ahead and start it! If you have questions or suggestions, the best place to leave them is at our community discussion page, which we call the Village pump - you should get a fast response. Or, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page if you have further questions, need help finding your way around, have a cool idea for a project, or just want to chat.

Glad to have you here!


Hi, I feel your edit which expanded on the definition of appropriate technology wasounding a bit esoteric. Is there anyway we could rephrase it into simpler language? Kind regards, Moribund (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2019 (PDT)
Hi Moribund. Ok, I can understand how it may have sounded like that. Any suggestions on how to rephrase? Also Moribund, I forgot to write the "summary" on my first edit, that's ok right? or if better to add it, how to do that now? Thanks for your help, --Keshavboddula (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2019 (PDT)
Regarding edit summary, this is just to help other editors quickly understand what edit you made when they are looking at the article history, although I'll admit that I don't bother to write an edit summary 95% of the time.
Regarding the content itself,
"In addition, or in envisioning a future phase of AT that lies on a more subjectively-observed axis of knowing, proponents could also claim their methods make more life(-energy) sense, are more at balance or in harmony with the natural environment, and enable appropriate, healthier, happier, more fulfilling, meaningful or purposeful ways of life."
  • To say "in envisioning" sounds a bit awkward, since the same syllable is immediately repeated.
  • "lies on a more subjectively observed axis of knowing" ... I am not sure I understand what exactly is meant here, and potentially some readers might also struggle to understand.
  • "make more life(-energy) sense" ... what is meant by life energy? How specifically does it make more energy sense?
  • I would potentially avoid using the term "appropriate" since this would make the definition slightly circular. The appropriateness element is also covered later in the definition.

Kind regards, Moribund (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2019 (PDT)

Oh, thank you (for your clarification-promps) Moribund.

First, I agree about the circular definition part - changing this now.

2nd, what I was trying to say with the "axis of knowing" is simply that there's more objectively known things, like data is a good example, or things that tend to be more static... then there are more subjectively known things (that can be frustrating for others to know that too unless they experience it, like the euphoria in believing in God for example, you know?), and here, it seems like the definition I added to was more at objectively known criteria, that life cycle analyses (l.c.a.s) would get at you know? compared to my expansion of the definition here... given where we're/the times are now, my emphasis on this seemed appropriate, but I mean, I guess I could just rephrase to "...future phase of AT that includes more subjectively known criterion" or something?

3rd, yes Moribund, this "life energy" thing I'm referring is actually an example of what I mean by subjectively understood/known... hmm, an example may be toward "painting with all the colors of the wind" like that song from the Disney movie Pocahontas many years ago. so, if a l.c.a. is done on wind turbines, you'll get a more objectively observed/observable energy score included, right? but, there are basically energies that the very method or nature of the more objective Science (that I'M familiar with at least) may not realize - especially LIFE energies... it can be more dynamic and complicated, including NOT necessarily making more life(-energy) sense, for some (depending on their karmas or deservability, for example). but does that basically make more sense now? any suggestions how to reword that part too?

Again, thank you for helping me to clarify goodly. --Keshavboddula (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2019 (PDT)