User talk:Ngatimozart: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:16, 2 April 2010

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tsunami and seiching occurring simultaneously in a rock walled inlet. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article and resubmit when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. fetchcomms☛ 22:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami and seiching occurring simultaneously in a rock walled inlet.

Hi. The article I wrote is definitely not an essay. It is a article based upon data acquired from original sources as well as secondary sources, one of which is confidential. All theses sources in the article are referenced as per International Scientific Journals protocols exactly to avoid plagiarism. It is an attempt to explain why the harbour responds in the way it does and is the subject of an ongoing long term research project. The reason i wrote it as it is was to explain the locality and then why and what happened. When we look at what has happened in the harbour we have to take into the cortex the very wide geographical area that does have an impact on it. The article was written as part of the assessment for a Masters of Science part 1 (equivalent to a honours year) Any suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Ngatimozart (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)ngatimozart[reply]

Original research

Hi Ngatimozart,

You need to take a long hard look at Wikipedia:No original research. I'm sorry if you find this disappointing, but your new article will not survive without references to reliable sources. If you get this work published in a journal, it would then be possible to construct such an article, although that would take a great deal of care on your part as self-citing can be problematic. As I've said at Talk:Tsunami and seiches in a rock walled inlet, better to delete this article yourself rather than have to go through the AfD process. Mikenorton (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it's been moved back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tsunami and seiching occurring simultaneously in a rock walled inlet by Fetchcomms. Hopefully, this will give you the chance to answer the concerns I expressed about OR. Mikenorton (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things I need to clarify here because the course I am doing requiring the writing of an article for Wikipedia is the first course in a New Zealand university to do this. It is a coastal science course so we tend to think as scientists.

The university learning centre is interested in our feed back and experiences because we are seen as a pilot course. OK with regard to the primary data issue in my article. Some of the data was taken from the Lyttelton Port Company website which streams the tide gauge and meteorological data in real time from its website. To a scientist that is primary source data, but then it is also in the public domain once it is streamed online, so one could argue that it is then a secondary source and verifiable. Also the Port company website has a library on it's website of previous data collected. With regard to the seiche data, that is available on the Mulgor Consulting Ltd website and therefore verifiable as well. Again it is in the public domain. The report written by Mulgor Consulting Ltd for the Lyttelton Port Company was only classified confidential because of a section in the report that has no bearing upon the the science. All the other references were in the public domain, peer reviewed published articles in journals or available from the organisations named. If I had left out the fact that no work had been done on tsunami and seiching in rock walled inlets then possibly this wouldn't have been classified as original research.

It appears to me that there might be a difference in terminology here and how it is applied.

If you use scientific data from a website that is streaming in real time data and that data is used in an article is it original research?

For the guidance of future students who will follow this path on this and subsequent courses could you please clarify how situations like this could be averted.

Thank you.Ngatimozart (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 :I see that it's been moved back to [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tsunami and seiching occurring simultaneously in a rock walled inlet]] by [[User:Fetchcomms|Fetchcomms]]. Hopefully, this will give you the chance to answer the concerns I expressed about [[WP:OR|OR]]. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 16:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
-==Talkback==
-[[File:Nuvola apps edu languages.svg|64px|left|link=]]
-{|style="background-color:white; border:2px solid ;-moz-border-radius-topright:20px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; color:black; font-family:Cambria, Rockwell, serif; text-align:left; padding:1em 0em;"
-|<span class="plainlinks" style="font-size: 120%; font-weight: normal;">Hello, '''{{BASEPAGENAME}}'''. You have new messages at [[User talk:Fetchcomms|Fetchcomms's talk page]].</span>
-|-
-|<span class="plainlinks" style="font-size: 100%; font-weight: normal;">You can [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|action=edit}} remove this notice] at any time by removing this code.</span> <span style="border:1px solid;">[[User:Fetchcomms|'''<span style="color:black;">&nbsp;fetch</span>''']][[User talk:Fetchcomms|'''<span style="color:black;">comms</span>''']][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:black;">☛</span>]]</span> 16:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
-|}