User talk:Emilehobo

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view when editing articles - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The General Theory of Consciousness[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The General Theory of Consciousness, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Essay.. seems to be a summary of user's thesis

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The General Theory of Consciousness[edit]

I have nominated The General Theory of Consciousness, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The General Theory of Consciousness. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

I suggest you read the guideline of WP:OR. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this relates to what I said about the Sun, I posted it on the talk page, and I merely pointed out that theories are written up as fact even though there's valid reason to doubt at least some of the theories. In terms of scientific documentation, you would have to write on WikiPedia that researcher so-and-so postulated that the Sun be such-and-so and to back up those claims noted these such-and-so arguments and they gathered measurements in such-and-so manner. There's nothing to back up anything written up as facts as postulated on WikiPedia that I know of, so theories should be noted as theories of specific people or institutes. Emilehobo (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the right approach if that was the way these models and theories were discussed by sources, which is not the case—which is why David invoked WP:OR, because it involves synthesizing information in a way not contained in any one source by itself. I would suggest interrogating why the sources may be so sure of things, or why they are written the way they are: there are many theaters of evidence that have contributed to the body of knowledge as it exists. Remsense诉 12:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In scientific documentation you still need to be open about this source says this, that source states that. You don't just post something as fact and add a source as a footnote.

For instance, with Newton's laws, you point to Newton and the experiment that corroborates it. I fail to see who postulated what and what corroborates these theories of the Sun as they have been written on WikiPedia.

For instance the different layers of the Sun as illustrated in "Illustration of the Sun's structure, in false colors for contrast" on WikiPedia baffle me. How are you going to see below the outer shell of the Sun? Emilehobo (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In scientific documentation you still need to be open about this source says this, that source states that. You don't just post something as fact and add a source as a footnote.

Could you point to any discrepancies between this article and its sources in this regard?

Moreover, you seem to be conflating this issue with tone (or "attribution", I suppose) with a distrust of the theories themselves, which if that's the case we really cannot help you. Remsense诉 13:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Like I said, you need to mention the author of the sources as the owner of theories when quoting theories in the same sentence, you don't just add a footnote. Whose discovery was this? What law states that this is so and what corroborates this?

2. You ask me to point to any discrepancies in tone between this article and its sources. I'm not saying there's a discrepancy, I merely point out that the phrase doesn't say "Name of scientist postulated hypothesis, which was further corroborated by experiment."

3. It needs to be made clear that these are theories, especially when it comes to things like the different layers illustrated as constituting the Sun.

4. The graphics of "Illustration of the Sun's structure, in false color for contrast" when I click them state that it's the poster's own work, which without further references should actually lead to it being removed for being his interpretation / original research. By the looks of it, it goes against WikiPedia's guidelines to post it. 77.164.78.39 (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate specific references relating to the article's sources like I've asked—without which I won't be replying again, unfortunately. Remsense诉 13:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not having logged in with the previous comment. I agree with you. The graphics of "Illustration of the Sun's structure, in false color for contrast" when I click them state that it's the poster's own work, which without further references should actually lead to it being removed for being his interpretation / original research. By the looks of it, it goes against WikiPedia's guidelines to post it. Emilehobo (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]