User talk:EdgeworthMcIntyre
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, EdgeworthMcIntyre, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Adding links to your book
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed that you added discussion of your book to a couple of articles. This is strongly discouraged by our conflict of interest policy. This is not a judgement about the quality of your work or your reputation in your field, just a general policy to avoid even the perception of non-neutrality. It also protects your own reputation -- some very well-known academics have been embarrassed when it was found that they were promoting their own work on Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, so I'm forbidden to mention my own work, no matter how relevant, and no matter how reputable its publisher. I must humbly accept this. Could I therefore ask you, please, to look at the free-to-read preview at http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/mem/papers/LHCE/mcintyre-book-preview.html (string-search "elegant"). If you were to judge that my point is worth making -- sharpening our understanding of why "elegant" variation is problematic, and why it would be more apt to call it "gratuitous" variation -- then would you consider restoring the reference under your own editorial authority? EdgeworthMcIntyre (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that the elegant variation article could use some insights from linguistics and other fields. The most obvious related work is Paul Grice's maxims, but there is also work in stylistics by George Dillon (Constructing Texts) and others. We don't generally try to include new work like yours until it is taken up by others. --Macrakis (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The point isn't new. It was published in 1997, in a reputable academic journal. Also, it's from deep biological fundamentals more than from linguistics. Before finalizing your judgement, please glance over pages 200 and 205 of my 1997 paper "Lucidity and science I: Writing skills and the pattern perception hypothesis", published in 1997 in the reputable journal "Interdisciplinary Science Reviews", http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/mem/papers/LHCE/lucidity-science-I-searchable-uncorrected.pdf and see if you don't find them persuasive -- AND useful! EdgeworthMcIntyre (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that the elegant variation article could use some insights from linguistics and other fields. The most obvious related work is Paul Grice's maxims, but there is also work in stylistics by George Dillon (Constructing Texts) and others. We don't generally try to include new work like yours until it is taken up by others. --Macrakis (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Chronological age isn't the issue and neither is what I think of the arguments. It's whether your point has been taken up by others. Has it? --Macrakis (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)