User talk:Rhbsihvi: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Proposed deletion of Human energy: Reminder to myself. |
Korny O'Near (talk | contribs) Notified about proposed deletion |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Usertalkarchiveheader}} |
|||
==Adoption== |
|||
Hello, Rhbsihvi! I see that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. I would be willing to adopt you, though it might help if you provided some information about your interests and what you are looking for in an adopter. The full list of adopters can be found [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters|here]], and you are free to choose any available adopter you feel would be the best fit for you. More information about me can be found on [[User:Krashlandon|my user page]] or at [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters#Krashlandon|my adopter entry]]. If you are interested or have any further questions about this process, please use [[User Talk:Krashlandon|my talk page]], or if you reply here please post <nowiki>{{tb|Rhbsihvi}}</nowiki> on my talk page. [[User:Krashlandon|Krashlandon]] [[User_talk:Krashlandon|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:My interests are in writing and improving articles and finding out what else there is to do at this site. [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user]] says an adopter is a mentor, which I suppose is needed, especially after reading [[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes]] which has so much I can’t remember already. I can rely to a certain extent on my own judgment based on my secular and religious education, and my understanding of what Wikipedia obviously is – an encyclopedia all over the internet, which trusts the public to tell the truth. I skimmed you user page and am wondering how sources can be archived without that being copyright infringement. The “tb” makes sense since I am unaware of any convenient way to watch pages. I’m not sure why you created all those accounts. I clicked the “user contributions” of the top of the list and it is unused. I don’t plan on being a fanatic on Wikipedia all day. I will occasionally visit this site. [[User:Rhbsihvi|Rhbsihvi]] ([[User talk:Rhbsihvi#top|talk]]) 23:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== "Defamatory" edit summaries == |
|||
::Thanks for the reply. I will address your comments in order. |
|||
::*After seeing your interests, I'm pretty sure I can help you with that. I have created several articles myself, and have lots of experience gathering sources and placing citations, including in controversial situations where things got heated (see [[User_talk:65.32.47.2#Florida_Department_of_Corrections|this]]). There are many automated or semiautomated tools that can help you with some of the harder to remember tasks. [[WP:Twinkle|Twinkle]] for one is extremely helpful for adding tags, including the TB tag you just used, and warning vandals. Others can make it easier to add sources, etc. |
|||
::*I have lots of experience with the Wikipedia guidelines, so I could answer your questions and steer you in the right direction whenever you need help. If you want to be more active, there are multitudes of ways to help out with the project, and I could point you to subprojects, activities, or research avenues that interest you. As an adopter, I am here to show you the ropes, so to speak, and to lend my experience. |
|||
::*The "archiving" I am referring to on my user page is in the sense that I have access to a large university library with microfilm and other such archives, not in the sense that the sources would be available online if they were not authorized to be. By the way, you can watch pages by clicking the star at the top right of the page banner. Then any changes will show up in your watchlist. |
|||
::*I have created so many accounts because I am part of the team of volunteers who review account creation requests for people who are not able to create an account for themselves, either because they are unable to read the captcha image or are affected by a [[WP:rangeblock|rangeblock]] or some other difficulty that prevents them from creating an account. We review their information and create the account for them, and the software sends them a randomly generated password. The reason many of those accounts have no contributions is that some people get accounts and then never edit, using them only for saving their preferences, or that they forget about them. |
|||
::*You don't have to be terribly active to use Wikipedia or profit from a mentor. There are even some tips and tricks for effectively navigating without even editing anything. |
|||
::If you are still interested, let me know. Thanks, |
|||
::[[User:Krashlandon|Krashlandon]] [[User_talk:Krashlandon|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::You can be my Wikipedia adopter if you want. As you can see from the section below, "Proposed deletion of 'Human energy'" someone is calling an article I started "synthesis," which I believe it is not. I'm not sure how long I should keep that conversation going. I wrote an answer to further statements I think are wrong, but it could go on an on.--[[User:Rhbsihvi|Rhbsihvi]] ([[User talk:Rhbsihvi#top|talk]]) 16:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
How can I prevent edit summaries that make me sound like I made a mistake when I did not. For example, I recently looked at an article I added the pronunciation of a word to. I got that pronunciation from a well know encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, Columbia University Press, via Infoplease, yet the edit summary undoing my edit claimed that I had not used a reliable source. I had used a reliable source. Should I put my source in my edit summary? Do you have any advice? --[[User:Rhbsihvi|Rhbsihvi]] ([[User talk:Rhbsihvi#top|talk]]) 05:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Consider yourself adopted then. As for your article, it does seem a bit like conflation or mangling of terms. I'm not quite sure it qualifies as original research, but there may be other problems. This is somewhat common for articles on new-agey or pseudo-scientific topics. I'll review it in more detail later when I'm not busy, but at a glance I get a feeling that it is probably covered in another article or should be put in another larger article. [[User:Krashlandon|Krashlandon]] [[User_talk:Krashlandon|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:The technical details are at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)]]. I can't find anything about having to cite pronunciations, but it wouldn't hurt to just mention where you got it in your edit summary. [[User:Krashlandon|Krashlandon]] [[User_talk:Krashlandon|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Courtesy notice == |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[ |
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Food circle]] == |
||
[[ |
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]] |
||
The article [[ |
The article [[:Food circle]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why. |
||
:'''While I am sure this article was created in good faith, I believe that it is an example of [[wp:Synthesis]]''' |
|||
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, |
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]]. |
||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk: |
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Food circle|the article's talk page]]. |
||
Please consider improving the |
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Korny O'Near|Korny O'Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O'Near|talk]]) 18:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
:I removed the "original research" I noticed, i.e. the last sentence. I don't know whether or not to remove the template.--[[User:Rhbsihvi|Rhbsihvi]] ([[User talk:Rhbsihvi#top|talk]]) 05:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::You have the right to remove the template if you want to. Basically, my concern is that the article is about several quite different meanings of the word 'energy' (energy in the physics sense, energy in the new-agy sense, and energy in the sense of ability to do mental work). If you are conflating them, the article is probably synthesis and original research; if you are not, then it is not obvious to me what the article is about. [[User:Cardamon|Cardamon]] ([[User talk:Cardamon|talk]]) 06:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I thought I'd try out starting a requested article. Here is a link showing it was requested: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences&diff=prev&oldid=422208125 my removal of the request]. The title requested was "Human energy." I googled that title, skimmed some articles, then conflated my brief summaries of each of them. I do not consider that original research or the paragraph to be a synthesis. Synthesis is when you state facts then come to a conclusion. Original research is when you perform an experiment and then publish it in a scientific journal. As far as I know. Anyhow, I think you are supposed to work on the article if you think it needs improvement. I won’t try to stop you. I’m no longer interested in that article. I was just trying out the “requested articles” page.--[[User:Rhbsihvi|Rhbsihvi]] ([[User talk:Rhbsihvi#top|talk]]) 16:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::So I've reviewed the article, and I agree with the proposed deletion. It seems to me that the user who originally requested the article was thinking of [[Chevron Corporation]]'s tagline, in which case the article would have been an [[WP:Advert|advert]] and poorly defined, since the idea behind their slogan is rather abstract and full of [[WP:Weasel words|weasel words]]. What you seem to have done is assumed it meant something else and mashed together a bunch of different ideas. Consequently, the article doesn’t have a really well defined subject, and you end up with what can be most closely defined as [[Wikipedia:Synthesis#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position|synthesis]]. The sources don’t seem particularly reliable either. See [[Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources]]. For example, reference 2 appears to be [[WP:original research|original research]], and reference 4 is just that tagline. You appear to have mixed [[metabolism]], [[Qi]], [[Energy]], and [[Aura (paranormal)|Aura]]. [[User:Krashlandon|Krashlandon]] [[User_talk:Krashlandon|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
'''''Courtesy'' notice?''' According to the deleted page, [[Human energy]], I requested its speedy deletion. I guess this was because two people wrote on my talk page that they think the stub was “synthesis.” I feel such messages are a form of [[character assassination]] since people probably don’t bother mentioning writing when they like it. After the claim of synthesis, I read the guideline on synthesis, since a link to it was included. After reading it, I felt what I wrote was not an example of what the article said synthesis was. The article on synthesis did say ''Wikipedia'' wants its articles to parrot published sources. Therefore, my critic probably meant “that was your idea” and not “that was synthesis.” However, since I’m still upset about it, I’m writing this comment to remind myself that I requested the article be speedily deleted. |
|||
Latest revision as of 18:40, 3 June 2018
| This is Rhbsihvi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1 |
"Defamatory" edit summaries
[edit]How can I prevent edit summaries that make me sound like I made a mistake when I did not. For example, I recently looked at an article I added the pronunciation of a word to. I got that pronunciation from a well know encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, Columbia University Press, via Infoplease, yet the edit summary undoing my edit claimed that I had not used a reliable source. I had used a reliable source. Should I put my source in my edit summary? Do you have any advice? --Rhbsihvi (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The technical details are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). I can't find anything about having to cite pronunciations, but it wouldn't hurt to just mention where you got it in your edit summary. Krashlandon (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Food circle has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)