User talk:Karol Alexandre

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Karol Alexandre! Thank you for your contributions. I am FreeRangeFrog and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome and the cookies dear FreeRangeFrog.

I read your recomendations. I wrote yesterday as well, in other talk page created by some wiki-friend (answering my notification about deletion and other items), in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuroepistemology

I answered this (and of course, I signed with the four tildes):

Working hard and trying to improve the page, starting by the "lead section". Also, considering to split contents into sub-articles and/or condensing it. Creating new links for explain the components of this reliable neuroscientific method, approaching critical insights to analyze brain functions. We will modify critical concepts on diverse topics of this field. Finally, we are aware and respectful about the Wiki-deletion policies. We are trying to fulfill with all this rules. Also we understand the relevance of this advise: this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 03:51 on 17 January. --Karol Alexandre (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So... very grateful with your help. We re-designed all the original page, and we did other pages as you see (may be four more). This work is as hard as you can imagine, and I hope, (you and us) WE can finish succesfully all the pages about this neuroscientific-philosophic subject.

Thanks again about your concern.... signing, :)--Karol Alexandre (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Deconstructive pragmatism[edit]

The article Deconstructive pragmatism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Rambling essay, full of WP:OR and WP:POV. Even if the subject is perhaps notable, this article is irredeemable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Protein episteme[edit]

The article Protein episteme has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Rambling essay, full of WP:OR and WP:POV. Even if the subject is perhaps notable, this article is irredeemable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pragmatic naturalism[edit]

The article Pragmatic naturalism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Rambling essay, full of WP:OR and WP:POV. Even if the subject is perhaps notable, this article is irredeemable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pragmatic naturalism[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Pragmatic naturalism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RandyKitty:

Yes, I am aware of the tag, speedy deletion of this page. We are working hard trying to improve radical changes in this page, avoiding "essay-words" and making more encyclopedic the speech. This is not copyvio notice, as I am trying to explain you. Please keep in touch, because you are important in this critical moment.

Yet, I am not sure, whether answering, by editing this same post is a correct form of answer, but I'm trying to do my best.

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Also I clicked, the "contested deletion" advise minutes ago, to avoid the speedy deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pragmatic_naturalism#Contested_deletion

but, in this moment.... This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

19:24, 11 January 2013 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Pragmatic naturalism (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.amazon.fr/Neuroepistemology-YURI-ZAMBRANO/dp/130008670X/ref=sr_1_72?ie=UTF8&qid=1357775331&sr=8-72#reader_130008670X and probably other pages in this book)

That was not copyright infringement. The quoted book is the only reference, linking neuroepistemology and pragmatic naturalism. In addition, the page had more references to justify the concept. Now that is o.k, I am wondering if is possible, create again other page, with different words as you are suggesting.

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Man~Machine Dilemma[edit]

The article Man~Machine Dilemma has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Rambling essay, full of WP:OR and WP:POV. Even if the subject is perhaps notable, this article is irredeemable. Possible copyvio of http://www.amazon.fr/Neuroepistemology-YURI-ZAMBRANO/dp/130008670X/ref=sr_1_72?ie=UTF8&qid=1357775331&sr=8-72

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your articles[edit]

Hi, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, as you can see above, I have proposed all the articles that you have created for deletion. This is for several reasons. One seems to be copied from a book, which is a violation of copyright and against Wikipedia's rules.The other articles, frankly, also look like they have been copied from somewhere, but I cannot find the source. If they are copyright violations, please indicate the source and ask an administrator to delete them immediately. Even if they are not violating any copyright, however, they are not suitable for WP either. The problem is that they all read like essays, not like encyclopedic articles. In addition, they seem to be original research and contain opinions. Finally, they all repeat large parts of each other and are therefore largely redundant. Please have a look at the policies and guidelines linked in this comment and in the welcome template at the top of this page. Creating new articles is one of the toughest tasks in WP. As a new editor, you would do better to start with making small contributions to existing articles, to learn how things work her. Finally, in all your articles you included links to Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and other booksellers, all apparently concerning the same book. Whether or not you are connected to the author of this book, this practice is considered promotional and very much frowned upon. Hope these comments help you get started here. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Randykitty:

Thanks for your attention in these contributions to Wikipedia. I've read the several reason with sincere attention, and I am aware to change your requests, because, as you see, we are very interested in this point.

1. If they are copyright violations, please indicate the source and ask an administrator to delete them immediately.

Answer: There is not no one violation of copyright. The bibliographic source is several times cited: Neuroepistemology, authored by Y.Z. (as you noted very well), clearly quoted. Please, dear Randykitty, this is a very vanguard science joining neurosciences and annalytic epistemology to study brain function of neural networks and consciential behavior. That is the main cause of these pages. Neuroepistemology is deeply scientific and highly propositive by the same philosophical stances.

2. Even if they are not violating any copyright, however, they are not suitable for WP either. The problem is that they all read like essays, not like encyclopedic articles.

Answer: NO, are not violating copyrights, hence, it will be reasonble consider the "WP" suggestions (achieving neutrality and giving equal validity and impartial tone). Indeed, is my style to write like essay, that we have to change and improve. We will try to change and make more encyclopedic these pages, AND SINCERELY, WE NEED HELP in this point. So, we are accepting your friendly support, if you can, dear Randykitty.

3. Links to booksellers, were displayed to give more credibility in such quotes. (If you help us, and approve, in fact, we can retire the link to booksellers: only quoting the book, author and ISBN, as you suggest). This is important for me, because I said above, you can not find many information about neuroepistemology. Nonetheless, as you see in the MAIN PAGE about neuroepistemology, the bibliography can be wealthy from the viewpoint of neuroscience and philosphy of mind. This is scientific, there is not violation of copyrights, and as you see, we are working hard, trying to improve all these pages.

Really, I am very grateful with your help.

Greetings,

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering RandyKitty:

Please dear, RandyKitty, I am not well writing (in talk) in Wiki, but I tried to answer, editing your last msg about my contributions. (I hope, this is good). Please, receive my apologies about this point and I am here to learn and finish these pages here in Wikipedia. Thank you.

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I share RandyKitty's concerns, and something that you said in your reply makes me worried that you may have misunderstood something. Please become familiar with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Copy-paste. You said in your reply that the source was cited. That, by itself, does not get you off the hook. Even if you credit where it came from, extensive reproduction of copyrighted material violates the copyright. No matter how enthusiastic you are about the subject matter, you still have to abide by Wikipedia's requirements. Because you are still a new editor, I urge you to accept RandyKitty's advice about taking it slow with creating new articles, or lengthy passages with new content. If other editors undo anything you have written, please take the time to understand their reasons for doing so, and take those reasons seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tryptofish:

Thanks about your msg. Of course, we share and following the RK tips concernig WP requirements. It is indeed, a general WP law, and we understand that, making revolutionary changes on pages, even creating didactic supports as the neuroepistemology template -indicating remarkable endeavor, because as you know I am new editor :)-, and applicating the WP policies (specially in the subpages reaching neutrality and partial tone). So, the work and the multiple changes can be objectively observed, and you are invited to help us making changes if you want, and discussing topics as well.

Thanks again.

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per #Your repeated attempts to undo the stubbification of Neuroepistemology, below, I am sorry to observe that you appear not to be getting the message. It's not enough to simply thank me. You have to edit in accordance with policy, or you risk being sanctioned. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Tryptofish !! The stubbification topic has already answered as you see below, responding to Randykitty as well, and observing WP rules. It is essential editing and respecting periods, waiting others editors to activately participate. I guess, you are making changes on page, we only want to do the right things. By the way, I like to be clear, specially in such Gordian concepts. We are open here, to reach better results. (By the way, are you upload the further readings?), only to start to talk in friendly terms. Greetings and respect for you and your interest on this topic.

Thanks--Karol Alexandre (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Protein episteme for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Protein episteme is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protein episteme until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Deconstructive pragmatism for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deconstructive pragmatism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deconstructive pragmatism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neuroepistemology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, already checked.

thanks JaGa, operator.

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated attempts to undo the stubbification of Neuroepistemology[edit]

Your recent editing history at Neuroepistemology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David:

I've just read BRD-WP suggestions. Of course, it is not a war editing. Nobody wants that, by following elemental WP rules and searching a consensus. Please check discussions in this page and also, in the "Neuroepistemology talk-page.

Yesterday as you see in the "section focus" in the "Neuroepistemology talk-page", it was explained the change. So this is important, because that page Is asking help, in all situations.

Yet, we don't know who is making the changes on the page, to start an optimal, kind and successful discussion. (Nobody has notified in these talk pages, about That changes, to reach consensus). Please if you can help in this point, it will be perfect. Now, it is well understood the concept of "revert the same page in 24 hours". The gates are open to start the discussion and respecting indeed, all the essential WP rules, and checking the two talk-pages, this and the neuroepistemology talk-page. Please, feel free, to continue suggesting and offering help.

Thanks

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits[edit]

Dear Karol,

Well, somebody has to say it, I guess. Let me say first of all that I appreciate your obvious enthusiasm and all the time you are spending in trying to improve the articles that you have created. The bad news, however, is that you are not succeeding. To be brutally frank: your articles are totally incomprehensible. I fear that in large part this is due to insufficient proficiency in English. Another problem may be that you are too close to the material yourself. This often results in writing that may be perfectly clear to its author, who after all knows the thinking behind the writing, but remains opaque and incomprehensible to others. As you have seen, this has resulted in the removal of almost all that you have written in the article neuroepistemology (and as explained above, please stop reverting the edits to that article). The same will certainly happen to all other articles that you have created.

In short, your edits are crating a lot of work, not only for yourself, but also for other editors. My advice would be to build up some experience with Wikipedia editing by first starting to edit the Wikipedia in your native language. This will help you develop writing skills that are necessary to produce clear and understandable prose. It will also help you getting a feel for things like layout and other WP procedures. Perhaps at the same time you could work on your English. Once you have improved your skills in both writing and English, it would be much easier for you to start contributing here.

I hope that these comments help you in your WP editing career! --Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RK: Thanks about your comments. Really appreciating your time checking these pages. Indeed, your opinion is really helpful, specially addressed to the tips in trying to improve WP skills. Concerning the material and references, I have to say, the article has more of 120 references very objectives, and in all the aspects looking for neutrality. This bibliography is from specialized books (also high impact journals on neuroscience and philosophy of mind) wrote by well-known authorities, working over 30 years on these topics. However, you are right and recognizing the problem, perhaps the point is "name" these references on the text.

We will seriously work on the concept of WP neutrality changing this article structure by following the WP rules, waiting of course, that more editors help to improve the main page on neuroepistemology, during the next days. Really hope so!! That is essential in furtherance of an optimal consensus.

Sincerely grateful about your tutorial support, please keep in touch.

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Man–machine dilemma for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Man–machine dilemma is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man–machine dilemma until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]