User talk:Parkermusic: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:43, 12 April 2007

Hi, I've marked your article Signa (opera) as a candidate for deletion, as per wikipedia policy original research is not permitted. For more information, please see Wikipedia:No original research. --bd_ 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have removed the db tag (which is incorrect, per the template instructions anyway) I have listed your article in Articles for Deletion. Please do not remove the tag, however you may share your thoughts in the discussion page. --bd_ 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When faced with a speedy deletion notice, it is enough to mark an article with {{hangon}} to prevent summary deletion - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed theh {{hangon}} tag that you placed on Signa (opera), because the article is no longer a speedy deletion candidate. It's nominated at articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signa (opera), where you can comment. The discussion will last for 5 days, so there is no rush. Leebo ^T/C 13:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thorgrim

The OR tag was used advisedly. Your own edits state "I have this article based on work from my unpublished Ph.D thesis". That's about as clearcut a case or original research as onee could find. - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that the above statement gives the impression that these articles are based on 'original' research, however, the reality is that all the facts presented are available in published sources or in sources available for public inspection. These articles have, therefore, been gathering together by the process of writing my Ph.D., and nothing stated could be considered an 'original' statement. Indeed, there is nothing stated in any of the articles could be considered anything other than factual or that is not backed up by evidence from several sources. I apologise for my poor use of terminology in my profile which has led to this confusion.

Christopher J. Parker 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous talk page, I have now deleted the 'Plot' element to comply with these wikipedia requirements and have added additional references to clarify the sources of the information in the article.

Christopher J. Parker 13:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGN

Please sign your comments on Wikipedia talk pages. (Just type ~~~~ after your comments in talk pages). Then they will look like this ----> - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for plot summaries

When you write about fiction, and you seem to have created a number of articles about various operas, the articles should not be plot summaries. It's acceptable to discuss the plot briefly, but more important is encyclopedic information like the operas' cultural impact. Most of the text of the opera articles are summaries of the plots. I recommend reading the Manual of Style for fiction before creating additional articles on operas. Leave me a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Leebo ^T/C 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous talk page, I have now deleted the 'Plot' element of all four of Cowen's operas to comply with these wikipedia requirements and have added additional references to clarify the sources of the information in the articles. I hope this is sufficient...

Christopher J. Parker 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 The OR tag was used advisedly. Your own edits state "I have this article based on work from my unpublished Ph.D thesis". That's about as clearcut a case or [[WP:OR|original research]] as onee could find. - [[User:Princess Tiswas|<span style="color:#006400">Tiswas</span>]]<sup><span style="color:#FF0000">([[User talk:Princess Tiswas|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Princess Tiswas|c]])</span></sup> 17:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
+I appreciate that the above statement gives the impression that these articles are based on 'original' research, however, the reality is that all the facts presented are available in published sources or in sources available for public inspection. These articles have, therefore, been gathering together by the process of writing my Ph.D., and nothing stated could be considered an 'original' statement. Indeed, there is nothing stated in any of the articles could be considered anything other than factual or that is not backed up by evidence from several sources. I apologise for my poor use of terminology in my profile which has led to this confusion.
+[[User:Parkermusic|Christopher J. Parker]] 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 Further to my previous talk page, I have now deleted the 'Plot' element to comply with these wikipedia requirements and have added additional references to clarify the sources of the information in the article.