User talk:Truthlogicreason
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Truthlogicreason, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Aaron Liu (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
Aaron Liu (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2023
[edit]
Hi Truthlogicreason! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Spontaneous parametric down-conversion that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I'm just getting started and appreciate the feedback. Truthlogicreason (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Citations supporting Buford Ray Conley
[edit]Thanks for adding a new article to Wikipedia. There's always more that can be added, and the representation of scientists is good but could be much better. In general for scientists (academics in general), we avoid using their own published literature as supporting citations. One reason is that these are "primary sources" and we want to focus on "secondary sources" (after looking a bit, I think that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship articulates this reasonably clearly). The other reason relates to 'self-publication'; CERTAINLY multi-author peer-reviewed publications are not 'self-published' in the sense it is usually taken. However, authors do craft how the message is delivered and the way it is contextualized (I've authored peer-reviewed publications - not a lot, but a few). It's a grey area. Typically, publications by the topic of the article are included in 'works or publications' appendix (see MOS:ORDER). Another thing to consider about using the author's publications as sources is that they do not contribute to the notability of the person; I don't think this is specifically called out at WP:PROF, but it is a general rule of thumb.
The reason I'm writing you here is that I looked at the article as part of patrolling new content and am considering some edits/revisions and the overall notability of the person. I thought it prudent to drop you a note. Regards. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping with the advice on the new article. I'm new to Wikipedia as a contributor and am still learning. I researched the scientist, and it looks like the discovery was cited in 12 other peer reviewed articles according to google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=16396966703840552132
- I think this would merit including a reference of some sort to the discovery. Would it make sense to put in links to the other papers that referenced it? Any advice would be appreciated so I can do this correctly for others in the future. Truthlogicreason (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Buford Ray Conley for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buford Ray Conley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.