User talk:Xenodochy

hi ralph! first off, please read the conflict of interest guidelines set forth by the Wikipedia community (which includes self-linking). second off, Kohlberg didn't have stage 0, at least in anything i've read (and i've read just about all of Kohlberg's works, the University of California has an AWESOME library system) - someone else made that up. i see it sometimes quoted that george bush is at this stage in email chain letters, further making me suspect. third off, everything on the site is already in the article, and is not a unique resource that helps by being linked. as per the above i've removed the link.

it does sounds like you are interested in Kohlberg though; this is both rare and appealing because most people seem to stop after they see how long the article name is. you should give a hand to editing the article, i'd love some collaboration! cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i believe conflict of interest comes into play when linking your own site: it is hard to be neutral when you've created the website you link! i know it may be easy to so 'no it isn't', but think about it from a third party perspective and see how it looks and feels. anyways, back to the stages.

i can see in the notes section that you mention kohlberg left stage 0 out of other publications that had the same tables. this makes the notes seem kind of shakey as a reliable source, and i don't think it deserves mention because of this. for another thing, here stage 0 sounds almost exactly like a combination of stage 1 and 2. for yet another, it isn't in his Moral Judgement Interview, almost certainly because he couldn't administer it to extremely young children, likely the only place one would see this stage demonstrated if it existed.

Kohlberg may have toyed with the idea of a stage 0, maybe simply to have a contrast to other theorists, but it doesn't appear in any of his works that are reliable sources. JoeSmack ^Talk 03:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text

{{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}

at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names.

Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 12:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]