![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 440 | ← | Archive 444 | Archive 445 | Archive 446 | Archive 447 | Archive 448 | → | Archive 450 |
The text below appears on the logo page when the logo is 'clicked on'. the description is exactly the same as the other photos on the Wiki entry and this message does not appear for them. The logo was created by Roger Hansell using a photograph of an original drawing by Roger Hansell. How can we resolve this. The entry is in draft format at the moment. Thanks.
'This media file is missing essential source information. The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status. Edit the file description page to add source information.
Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added (21 January 2016).
Usage of this tag: For categorisation purposes, always use {{
di-no source}}
. If you didn't use an automated tool, notify the uploader manually.'
Stuartlindsaymorle (
talk)
11:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Re my email address being visible, it is certainly not for self promotion. How would that be possible? I was unaware that it could be hidden, so perhaps someone can help me to do that. Stuartlindsaymorle ( talk) 23:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello - I'm new to all this and learning the hard way fast. I work at a school and and have made some edits to the school's page (added the new website address, added citations as requested from a flag and taken out swathes of marketing speak). Is this ok despite the COI? This has been now been flagged to me in the 'talk' section in a very friendly way but I would have thought that these sorts of amends which are trying to improve a bad situation would be acceptable. I don't want the page to get another flag because I'm going about things the wrong way. Can anyone advise? Nikkimarketing ( talk) 19:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This question continues a discussion with the same name that appears as the second article in Archive_444.
My draft has been rejected for not having "significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (Emphasis in original.)
I have been using the benchmark that LittleRedBunny was notable enough to go live. In the original discussion, Maproom advised me that LRB's reference of Daily Mail made her page a more suitable page than Lovett's page. Lovett's page has since been revised to include Daily Mail as a reference. As a matter of fact, the Draft page, unedited from the last rejection (@3:43 pm UTC 1/27/16) contains six common independent references, each with approximate coverage of the subject. Granted, Lovett's draft uses a blog as a reference. But so does LRB's.
I find it difficult to believe that a two-time international award winner that is widely interviewed, featured on television, including HBO, and presented in sources such as Cosmopolitan UK, and telegraph, the one reference that has been accepted, is not notable. So the defect in my draft must be in my presentation.
Can anyone advise me? Gmw4313 ( talk) 16:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey I am working at a university and updating the text heavy webpages. I am wanting to change the layout of the Wiki site - such as adding pictures.
I have watched online tutorials - however I do not have the image edit tool. I only have nine tool options (such as bold, italics - also embed file and file link, but that's it).
My role is making technology enjoyable. I want our face (our website) to be simple and fun. :) Thanks, Jess Hawkesje21 ( talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Im in the process of completing my first wiki page. It is a bio of a living person.
Im wondering how I can go about publishing the draft as well as locking it to prevent unwanted edits.
FYI, the draft is not done yet, it needs a few more days of work, but it's getting very close so I figured I could as this question.
Thanks.
Riff.jdp ( talk) 05:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
to the top. But be sure you read
WP:BLP first for the special requirements for bio of a living person.I dont even know how to respond to each of your comments individually so I'll try to address everything in one post.
Im not trying to "lock" the page from editing. But I do notice that on Tom Brady's wiki page tgeir is a lock symbol. Did I misunderstand whatit meant?
Ive listed all the references available on the internet. Other than a stack of published watercraft magazines from the 90's Ithe sport doesnt have archives on the internet that I can reference. I can factually support all the claims on the article. How do I go about citing a magazine as a source that hasnt been archived on the net?
I will clean up the "woulds" and other errors of that nature.
Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riff.jdp ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Rh2barb3 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Golden Independence is a obstacle for Flash Sentry.Rh2barb3 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rh2barb3 ( talk • contribs)
I'm code-illiterate.
Every year I take all the correspondence from my talk page and collapse it by putting the collapse template in the last entry for the year. Sloppy, maybe, but that's the extent of my skills and it keeps things tidy on the surface.
When I tried to do this today, for some reason the 2014 section has jumped to the end of the list, ahead of 2015 and 2016. I have made an error somewhere in the markup, but I have been through it multiple times and can't find it.
Would someone who enjoys code mysteries like to take a look at the page? /info/en/?search=User_talk:Whoosit
Thanks! Whoosit (stalk) 01:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a bit confused about the speedy delete process. If a tag is removed by an uninvolved editor and just put straight back on again by the nominator is that correct? As there doesn't seem any point in removing it, Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, could you check it out its Wellchild Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Correction WellChild Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below, rather than being deleted.
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#Procedure for contested speedies;
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 33#Non-admin removal
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36#Can a non-admin decline a speedy deletion request?
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 32#Removal of CSD tags.
Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a very different question than I usually ask about AFC articles. User:Jeanmichel.sellier is a user page, but is designated as an AFC draft. User:Onel5969 reviewed it and declined it as original research. It was then resubmitted as is, with no changes, which I find to be tendentious, but I disagree as to whether it is original research. My interpretation is that isn’t original research, because it has multiple citations to published papers by Dr. Jean Michel Sellier in peer-reviewed journals, and a few papers by other researchers. It isn’t clear what the title of the article is supposed to be, and other improvements would be in order. However, my question is: Am I correct that Wikipedia may accept articles that rely primarily on peer-reviewed papers by a Wikipedia editor who is their author and a scientist?
Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 08:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC) My intention was simply to put a page about the Signed Particle Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. But it seems that it was sumbitted as some sort of biography about me or something like that. The problem is that I honestly do not understand the Wikipedia platform very well, I find it very confusing. Therefore, could someone help me in the process of submitting the article in the correct way? I very honestly think that this new formulation of quantum mechanics should be on Wikipedia. This could help a whole community to access a new theory which has shown, in the last three years, to solve MANY of the problems around the topic of simulating/understanding quantum systems in intuitive terms. Many thanks to whoever is willing to help me (and Science ultimately)!
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 10:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Hello Cordless Larry and Dbfirs, thanks for helping! I could add the following papers for instance: "On the relationship between the Wigner–Moyal approach and the quantum operator algebra of von Neumann", Journal of Computational Electronics, 2015, by B.J. Hiley who is one historical collaborator of David Bohm (i.e. an EXTREMELY big authority in the field is citing my work, that's why I am so surprised by the reviewers behavior towards my Wikipedia article) but also "Dissipative transport in superlattices within the Wigner function formalism", Journal of Computational Electronics, 2015, by O. Jonasson and I. Knezevic for a more applied (but authorative) source. But I could add other independent papers citing my work if necessary. The thing is that I do not know how to resubmit the whole thing properly at this point. This platform is difficult to understand honestly. To conclude, yes, my theory is a phase-space formulation of quantum mechanics (a new one). I tried a while ago to add some reference to the corresponding wiki page but was deleted almost immediately (I dont even remember why). This is honestly VERY frustrating since my only aim here is to share something useful with the community. Thanks A LOT in advance for helping me!
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 12:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Update: The User Theroadislong told me that I have a conflict of interests now.. Would someone try to submit my article independently? Thanks to whoever wants to help!
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 13:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your very good advice Maproom. Unfortunately, once Wikipedia reviewers (see above) are telling me that I have a conflict of interests I am not sure I can do anything anymore. I hope someone will try to submit my theory anyway. In the meanwhile I will use technical journals as usual and forget about Wikipedia.
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 13:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Many thanks Onel5969 for your answer. At this point, I am going to ask someone independent to resubmit this article (after some modification he/she would like to do). I hope it will work now. Sharing scientific theories is one of the most important things we have in this life, it helps us to have a better life. Hopefully, Wikipedia can be of great help from this perspective!
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 14:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Update. Someone decided to help me and resubmitted my draft with her personal modifications. You can find it here: Draft:The_Signed_Particle_Formulation_of_Quantum_Mechanics I hope it will work now.
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC) With all due respect, in that case I will simply stop trying once for all. I and several colleagues of mine have been trying for months with no success. It seems that, paradoxically, it is much easier to publish a paper on a technical journal than on Wikipedia.
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 08:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Many thanks to all of you for these further comments! Let me add one thing though. It is true that the "Signed Particle Formulation" paper has been cited by only three independent papers (yet) but there are other things to take into account. First of all, three citations for a paper that was just published a few months ago is a quite nice achievement. Secondly, and most importantly, the method was actually started three years ago under the name of Wigner Monte Carlo method because, at that time, we thought it was simply a numerical method. It was only later that I personally understood it was an actual formulation of quantum mechanics. Therefore, taking this into account, one should check how many times the Wigner Monte Carlo method has been cited. You would be amazed (you just need to see the list of papers here [1]). This method/formulation has raised serious interest in the community. Thanks to it, I have been invited as a keynote speaker in many conferences around the world, not to mention that I have been invited in many countries to give series of lectures about the whole thing (it is perceived as a breakthrough). I am not saying it to "look cool" but because I seriously think there is a value in this theory that should be shared with the community as much as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.175.85.152 ( talk) 08:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 13:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Last update: article rejected! Good thing I am good enough for the Scientific and the GNU community...
References
I am struggling with my first article, reg a serial social enteprenuer Zika Abzuk. Please: How do I designate it as a "draft"? How do I submit for review? I tried reading the guide articles, i got lost. I am a physician but non technical- I am a psychiatrist. Thanx Adam1955 ( talk) 07:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Sofiaarangoe ( talk) 11:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Hello Teahouse. I work for Paolo De Grandis, President of PDG Arte Communications and I have the task to write his history as art curator and organizer in wikipedia as Paolo De Grandis. I wrote the article with all information he told me and have all website and book references to support the story. I am new and I am having so trouble understanding the procedure, for I received the blatant copyright violation (eventough I wrote the article myself). I guess the problem is that I wrote also the articles on his website and so wikipedia thinks I am copying them, but it will be like copying myself. How do I proceed to prevent deletion? Thank you Sofiaarangoe ( talk) 11:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious about whether there is a standard WP approach to dealing with citing reference information where multiple sources are in conflict.
This arose from my reading of the page on Graves' Disease: /info/en/?search=Graves%27_disease when the following statement in the intro caught my eye: About 25% to 80% of people with the condition develop eye problems.[1][3]
To my mind the statement sounds absurd. I am accustomed to such a use of "About ..." to indicate a range with a relatively low span, so I suspected a possible "typo". When I looked at the first reference given I indeed saw figures which supported my suspicion - essentially claiming a range of 25% to 35%. I was unable to locate any information in the second reference given so I edited the page.
The edit was promptly reverted and it was pointed out that the second reference indicates an affected rate of (more than) 80%. So this to me immediately raises these two questions:-
1) Whether the existence of the conflict should be noted (in the introduction) 2) Whether the wording of the statement is generally considered absurd or acceptable
To my mind the statement should either limit itself to information from a single source, e.g. "More than 80% of ...", or should be worded to reflect the conflict/uncertainty, e.g. "Anywhere from 25% to 80% of ... have been found to ..." (or "are believed to" etc.)
Wsierke ( talk) 15:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A number of articles use this phrase without explanation. I used Google without success, so can anyone tell me what a plush pocket is. Wiki searches don't seem to help. Jodosma (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm Josh, & I was wondering if a page I was thinking of creating would be a valid page on the encyclopaedia. The page will be called 'List of unusual excreta'. Despite the apparently inappropriate subject, I believe it is soundly written, as the draft I have created is approximately 2,300 words and inappropriateness is invalid, due to currently existing articles such as 'List of Toilet Related Injuries' and 'List of Unusual Deaths'. I can provide examples of items in the list if necessary. Thanks, JoshMuirWikipedia ( talk) 02:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Teahouse I just want to know what came before Wikipedia? Was it Nupedia? Actionfilmlover ( talk) 07:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Teahouse i just want to know what came before Wikipedia? Was it Nupedia? Actionfilmlover ( talk) 07:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to review GA nomination Rahul Gandhi anymore. Someone else please take my place on the review page. Ikhtiar H ( talk) 05:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Whilst working through articles, I've discovered one that seems like a simple advertising: Resnap
I've added the appropriate tags (I think), what is the next recommended step with an article like that? NilsOngeveer ( talk) 09:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I like to make a list in 2 columns. What is the code for that? TeriEmbrey ( talk) 14:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello there. I am looking to start a new page with some facts about Yogi Aaron, also formerly known as Aaron Star. He's a yoga instructor, an author and a business owner. From what I've read so far (i'm new to editing Wikipedia) everything I say on this page should be verifiable by other sources.
Would those sources also include his book and the business website or no?
Or are the sources considered valid only if they are -for example- elephant journal, other magazines and yoga websites?
Thank you
Ballantinesrose ( talk) 22:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks in advance for your help!
Gggoodgggirl Gggoodgggirl ( talk) 03:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Gggoodgggirl Gggoodgggirl ( talk) 03:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the IMDB comment, I have looked at pages of television entertainers, producers, etc, and they all reference IMDB. My father has written over 100 screenplays for television since 1947. If I cannot use IMDB as a "reliable resource" where on earth would i get my citations? It is not easy to find other references to the episodes of "The Gabby Hayes Show" and "Johnny Jupiter"!
Anyway, if I want to have someone review my draft and provide feedback before I submit it- is that possible? How would I go about doing that?
gggoodgggirl Gggoodgggirl ( talk) 05:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
gggoodgggirl Gggoodgggirl ( talk) 05:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I started doing my research and I found articles from Huffington Post, Nydaily News, LA magazine and a few other yoga related websites documenting Aaron Star as the founder of the naked yoga movemebt in New York city. Those should be valid sources right?
I want to follow your advice and start editing other pages to familiarize with the Wikipedia format, and I felt that I had something to contribute to Italian-specifically- Piedmontese traditional foods- but it appears that I am unable to use the same account for a wikipedia in other language? Thank you
Ballantinesrose ( talk) 17:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I've been through a ~2 week editing process, trying to create an article on a dentist. I have done all the special coding, in-line citation, rewriting, and suggestions from reviews. Now I am being told that the article is under a speedy deletion flag because:
"Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."
Is there any hope of creating an article that will be accepted?? Please advise.
Thank you, Sara Wrgdds1 ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello again Wikipedia Teahouse i also want to know when the Michael Cole Wrestling Wikipedia Article was created? Morningnewswatcher ( talk) 23:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I've recently added a new page about the company "Dermaflage." The company has a wide variety of credible press sources and other references and I've tried to keep the language about the product as neutral as possible. Can someone help explain what additional edits are needed to remove the "written like an advertisement" tag? Thanks, Evan Evkatz4 ( talk) 22:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 440 | ← | Archive 444 | Archive 445 | Archive 446 | Archive 447 | Archive 448 | → | Archive 450 |
The text below appears on the logo page when the logo is 'clicked on'. the description is exactly the same as the other photos on the Wiki entry and this message does not appear for them. The logo was created by Roger Hansell using a photograph of an original drawing by Roger Hansell. How can we resolve this. The entry is in draft format at the moment. Thanks.
'This media file is missing essential source information. The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status. Edit the file description page to add source information.
Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added (21 January 2016).
Usage of this tag: For categorisation purposes, always use {{
di-no source}}
. If you didn't use an automated tool, notify the uploader manually.'
Stuartlindsaymorle (
talk)
11:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Re my email address being visible, it is certainly not for self promotion. How would that be possible? I was unaware that it could be hidden, so perhaps someone can help me to do that. Stuartlindsaymorle ( talk) 23:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello - I'm new to all this and learning the hard way fast. I work at a school and and have made some edits to the school's page (added the new website address, added citations as requested from a flag and taken out swathes of marketing speak). Is this ok despite the COI? This has been now been flagged to me in the 'talk' section in a very friendly way but I would have thought that these sorts of amends which are trying to improve a bad situation would be acceptable. I don't want the page to get another flag because I'm going about things the wrong way. Can anyone advise? Nikkimarketing ( talk) 19:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This question continues a discussion with the same name that appears as the second article in Archive_444.
My draft has been rejected for not having "significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (Emphasis in original.)
I have been using the benchmark that LittleRedBunny was notable enough to go live. In the original discussion, Maproom advised me that LRB's reference of Daily Mail made her page a more suitable page than Lovett's page. Lovett's page has since been revised to include Daily Mail as a reference. As a matter of fact, the Draft page, unedited from the last rejection (@3:43 pm UTC 1/27/16) contains six common independent references, each with approximate coverage of the subject. Granted, Lovett's draft uses a blog as a reference. But so does LRB's.
I find it difficult to believe that a two-time international award winner that is widely interviewed, featured on television, including HBO, and presented in sources such as Cosmopolitan UK, and telegraph, the one reference that has been accepted, is not notable. So the defect in my draft must be in my presentation.
Can anyone advise me? Gmw4313 ( talk) 16:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey I am working at a university and updating the text heavy webpages. I am wanting to change the layout of the Wiki site - such as adding pictures.
I have watched online tutorials - however I do not have the image edit tool. I only have nine tool options (such as bold, italics - also embed file and file link, but that's it).
My role is making technology enjoyable. I want our face (our website) to be simple and fun. :) Thanks, Jess Hawkesje21 ( talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Im in the process of completing my first wiki page. It is a bio of a living person.
Im wondering how I can go about publishing the draft as well as locking it to prevent unwanted edits.
FYI, the draft is not done yet, it needs a few more days of work, but it's getting very close so I figured I could as this question.
Thanks.
Riff.jdp ( talk) 05:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
to the top. But be sure you read
WP:BLP first for the special requirements for bio of a living person.I dont even know how to respond to each of your comments individually so I'll try to address everything in one post.
Im not trying to "lock" the page from editing. But I do notice that on Tom Brady's wiki page tgeir is a lock symbol. Did I misunderstand whatit meant?
Ive listed all the references available on the internet. Other than a stack of published watercraft magazines from the 90's Ithe sport doesnt have archives on the internet that I can reference. I can factually support all the claims on the article. How do I go about citing a magazine as a source that hasnt been archived on the net?
I will clean up the "woulds" and other errors of that nature.
Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riff.jdp ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Rh2barb3 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Golden Independence is a obstacle for Flash Sentry.Rh2barb3 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rh2barb3 ( talk • contribs)
I'm code-illiterate.
Every year I take all the correspondence from my talk page and collapse it by putting the collapse template in the last entry for the year. Sloppy, maybe, but that's the extent of my skills and it keeps things tidy on the surface.
When I tried to do this today, for some reason the 2014 section has jumped to the end of the list, ahead of 2015 and 2016. I have made an error somewhere in the markup, but I have been through it multiple times and can't find it.
Would someone who enjoys code mysteries like to take a look at the page? /info/en/?search=User_talk:Whoosit
Thanks! Whoosit (stalk) 01:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a bit confused about the speedy delete process. If a tag is removed by an uninvolved editor and just put straight back on again by the nominator is that correct? As there doesn't seem any point in removing it, Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, could you check it out its Wellchild Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Correction WellChild Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below, rather than being deleted.
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#Procedure for contested speedies;
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 33#Non-admin removal
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36#Can a non-admin decline a speedy deletion request?
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 32#Removal of CSD tags.
Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a very different question than I usually ask about AFC articles. User:Jeanmichel.sellier is a user page, but is designated as an AFC draft. User:Onel5969 reviewed it and declined it as original research. It was then resubmitted as is, with no changes, which I find to be tendentious, but I disagree as to whether it is original research. My interpretation is that isn’t original research, because it has multiple citations to published papers by Dr. Jean Michel Sellier in peer-reviewed journals, and a few papers by other researchers. It isn’t clear what the title of the article is supposed to be, and other improvements would be in order. However, my question is: Am I correct that Wikipedia may accept articles that rely primarily on peer-reviewed papers by a Wikipedia editor who is their author and a scientist?
Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 08:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC) My intention was simply to put a page about the Signed Particle Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. But it seems that it was sumbitted as some sort of biography about me or something like that. The problem is that I honestly do not understand the Wikipedia platform very well, I find it very confusing. Therefore, could someone help me in the process of submitting the article in the correct way? I very honestly think that this new formulation of quantum mechanics should be on Wikipedia. This could help a whole community to access a new theory which has shown, in the last three years, to solve MANY of the problems around the topic of simulating/understanding quantum systems in intuitive terms. Many thanks to whoever is willing to help me (and Science ultimately)!
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 10:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Hello Cordless Larry and Dbfirs, thanks for helping! I could add the following papers for instance: "On the relationship between the Wigner–Moyal approach and the quantum operator algebra of von Neumann", Journal of Computational Electronics, 2015, by B.J. Hiley who is one historical collaborator of David Bohm (i.e. an EXTREMELY big authority in the field is citing my work, that's why I am so surprised by the reviewers behavior towards my Wikipedia article) but also "Dissipative transport in superlattices within the Wigner function formalism", Journal of Computational Electronics, 2015, by O. Jonasson and I. Knezevic for a more applied (but authorative) source. But I could add other independent papers citing my work if necessary. The thing is that I do not know how to resubmit the whole thing properly at this point. This platform is difficult to understand honestly. To conclude, yes, my theory is a phase-space formulation of quantum mechanics (a new one). I tried a while ago to add some reference to the corresponding wiki page but was deleted almost immediately (I dont even remember why). This is honestly VERY frustrating since my only aim here is to share something useful with the community. Thanks A LOT in advance for helping me!
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 12:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Update: The User Theroadislong told me that I have a conflict of interests now.. Would someone try to submit my article independently? Thanks to whoever wants to help!
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 13:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your very good advice Maproom. Unfortunately, once Wikipedia reviewers (see above) are telling me that I have a conflict of interests I am not sure I can do anything anymore. I hope someone will try to submit my theory anyway. In the meanwhile I will use technical journals as usual and forget about Wikipedia.
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 13:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Many thanks Onel5969 for your answer. At this point, I am going to ask someone independent to resubmit this article (after some modification he/she would like to do). I hope it will work now. Sharing scientific theories is one of the most important things we have in this life, it helps us to have a better life. Hopefully, Wikipedia can be of great help from this perspective!
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 14:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Update. Someone decided to help me and resubmitted my draft with her personal modifications. You can find it here: Draft:The_Signed_Particle_Formulation_of_Quantum_Mechanics I hope it will work now.
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC) With all due respect, in that case I will simply stop trying once for all. I and several colleagues of mine have been trying for months with no success. It seems that, paradoxically, it is much easier to publish a paper on a technical journal than on Wikipedia.
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 08:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Many thanks to all of you for these further comments! Let me add one thing though. It is true that the "Signed Particle Formulation" paper has been cited by only three independent papers (yet) but there are other things to take into account. First of all, three citations for a paper that was just published a few months ago is a quite nice achievement. Secondly, and most importantly, the method was actually started three years ago under the name of Wigner Monte Carlo method because, at that time, we thought it was simply a numerical method. It was only later that I personally understood it was an actual formulation of quantum mechanics. Therefore, taking this into account, one should check how many times the Wigner Monte Carlo method has been cited. You would be amazed (you just need to see the list of papers here [1]). This method/formulation has raised serious interest in the community. Thanks to it, I have been invited as a keynote speaker in many conferences around the world, not to mention that I have been invited in many countries to give series of lectures about the whole thing (it is perceived as a breakthrough). I am not saying it to "look cool" but because I seriously think there is a value in this theory that should be shared with the community as much as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.175.85.152 ( talk) 08:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Jeanmichel.sellier ( talk) 13:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Last update: article rejected! Good thing I am good enough for the Scientific and the GNU community...
References
I am struggling with my first article, reg a serial social enteprenuer Zika Abzuk. Please: How do I designate it as a "draft"? How do I submit for review? I tried reading the guide articles, i got lost. I am a physician but non technical- I am a psychiatrist. Thanx Adam1955 ( talk) 07:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Sofiaarangoe ( talk) 11:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Hello Teahouse. I work for Paolo De Grandis, President of PDG Arte Communications and I have the task to write his history as art curator and organizer in wikipedia as Paolo De Grandis. I wrote the article with all information he told me and have all website and book references to support the story. I am new and I am having so trouble understanding the procedure, for I received the blatant copyright violation (eventough I wrote the article myself). I guess the problem is that I wrote also the articles on his website and so wikipedia thinks I am copying them, but it will be like copying myself. How do I proceed to prevent deletion? Thank you Sofiaarangoe ( talk) 11:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious about whether there is a standard WP approach to dealing with citing reference information where multiple sources are in conflict.
This arose from my reading of the page on Graves' Disease: /info/en/?search=Graves%27_disease when the following statement in the intro caught my eye: About 25% to 80% of people with the condition develop eye problems.[1][3]
To my mind the statement sounds absurd. I am accustomed to such a use of "About ..." to indicate a range with a relatively low span, so I suspected a possible "typo". When I looked at the first reference given I indeed saw figures which supported my suspicion - essentially claiming a range of 25% to 35%. I was unable to locate any information in the second reference given so I edited the page.
The edit was promptly reverted and it was pointed out that the second reference indicates an affected rate of (more than) 80%. So this to me immediately raises these two questions:-
1) Whether the existence of the conflict should be noted (in the introduction) 2) Whether the wording of the statement is generally considered absurd or acceptable
To my mind the statement should either limit itself to information from a single source, e.g. "More than 80% of ...", or should be worded to reflect the conflict/uncertainty, e.g. "Anywhere from 25% to 80% of ... have been found to ..." (or "are believed to" etc.)
Wsierke ( talk) 15:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A number of articles use this phrase without explanation. I used Google without success, so can anyone tell me what a plush pocket is. Wiki searches don't seem to help. Jodosma (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm Josh, & I was wondering if a page I was thinking of creating would be a valid page on the encyclopaedia. The page will be called 'List of unusual excreta'. Despite the apparently inappropriate subject, I believe it is soundly written, as the draft I have created is approximately 2,300 words and inappropriateness is invalid, due to currently existing articles such as 'List of Toilet Related Injuries' and 'List of Unusual Deaths'. I can provide examples of items in the list if necessary. Thanks, JoshMuirWikipedia ( talk) 02:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Teahouse I just want to know what came before Wikipedia? Was it Nupedia? Actionfilmlover ( talk) 07:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Teahouse i just want to know what came before Wikipedia? Was it Nupedia? Actionfilmlover ( talk) 07:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to review GA nomination Rahul Gandhi anymore. Someone else please take my place on the review page. Ikhtiar H ( talk) 05:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Whilst working through articles, I've discovered one that seems like a simple advertising: Resnap
I've added the appropriate tags (I think), what is the next recommended step with an article like that? NilsOngeveer ( talk) 09:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I like to make a list in 2 columns. What is the code for that? TeriEmbrey ( talk) 14:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello there. I am looking to start a new page with some facts about Yogi Aaron, also formerly known as Aaron Star. He's a yoga instructor, an author and a business owner. From what I've read so far (i'm new to editing Wikipedia) everything I say on this page should be verifiable by other sources.
Would those sources also include his book and the business website or no?
Or are the sources considered valid only if they are -for example- elephant journal, other magazines and yoga websites?
Thank you
Ballantinesrose ( talk) 22:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks in advance for your help!
Gggoodgggirl Gggoodgggirl ( talk) 03:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Gggoodgggirl Gggoodgggirl ( talk) 03:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the IMDB comment, I have looked at pages of television entertainers, producers, etc, and they all reference IMDB. My father has written over 100 screenplays for television since 1947. If I cannot use IMDB as a "reliable resource" where on earth would i get my citations? It is not easy to find other references to the episodes of "The Gabby Hayes Show" and "Johnny Jupiter"!
Anyway, if I want to have someone review my draft and provide feedback before I submit it- is that possible? How would I go about doing that?
gggoodgggirl Gggoodgggirl ( talk) 05:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
gggoodgggirl Gggoodgggirl ( talk) 05:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I started doing my research and I found articles from Huffington Post, Nydaily News, LA magazine and a few other yoga related websites documenting Aaron Star as the founder of the naked yoga movemebt in New York city. Those should be valid sources right?
I want to follow your advice and start editing other pages to familiarize with the Wikipedia format, and I felt that I had something to contribute to Italian-specifically- Piedmontese traditional foods- but it appears that I am unable to use the same account for a wikipedia in other language? Thank you
Ballantinesrose ( talk) 17:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I've been through a ~2 week editing process, trying to create an article on a dentist. I have done all the special coding, in-line citation, rewriting, and suggestions from reviews. Now I am being told that the article is under a speedy deletion flag because:
"Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."
Is there any hope of creating an article that will be accepted?? Please advise.
Thank you, Sara Wrgdds1 ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello again Wikipedia Teahouse i also want to know when the Michael Cole Wrestling Wikipedia Article was created? Morningnewswatcher ( talk) 23:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I've recently added a new page about the company "Dermaflage." The company has a wide variety of credible press sources and other references and I've tried to keep the language about the product as neutral as possible. Can someone help explain what additional edits are needed to remove the "written like an advertisement" tag? Thanks, Evan Evkatz4 ( talk) 22:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)