User talk:LakesideMiners/Archives/2020/January

Hello

helloooooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilcucumber165 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lilcucumber165, Hello. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion about unregistered editor edit warring to add stuntman to multiple articles

This is a quick note to let you know that I've opened a discussion at WP:ANI about the unregistered editor edit warring to add a stuntman to multiple articles (American Academy of Dramatic Arts‎, List of Florida Institute of Technology people, List of Ohio State University people, and List of Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University alumni‎). I'm letting you know because you have reverted at least one of his or her edits or had other interactions with him or her. ElKevbo (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi I wrote information regarding Toronto rap artist Swagger Rite and want it published as he is verified on Instagram and an upcoming Toronto Toronto Canada and people are dying to know know his biography And history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolie.dallas (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Scott Lingamfelter page edits

I am Scott Lingamfelter, the subject of this page. I have personally attempted to make edits of a factual nature that also updates my current status as a former politician. I believe this page was developed by persons who worked for me when I was in politics or by others unknown to me. When I attempted to make edits on Friday 10 Jan 2020, they were rejected and I was warned that further efforts to edit would result in my being blocked. I need help in getting these valid edits and updates applied to this page. I can be reached at slingamfelter@comcast.net Scottlingamfelter (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Accusation of disruptive editing

I was sent a message by you accusing me of disruptive editing of Children in Scotland. I'm new to Wikipedia – not a very welcoming place. Trying to update the information of an organisation I used to work for so it's accurate and factual. Is that not acceptable?

Cisweb (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisweb (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cisweb: Please see the explanation about "Promotion" that I have placed on your user talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Cisweb, read the links in the message, that explains what you are doing. You were told why what you are doing is disruptive. both me and WikiDan61 have left messages on your talk page about this. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I just deleted inaccurate information from Children in Scotland and added the name of the Chief Executive.

Can you explain why that offends you? I want facts on Wiki. and I added one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisweb (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't block you, I can report you however. I am not telling you why, you have been told why AT LEAST 3 times. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Lakeside, I think you're starting to go overboad with this edit. Adding the name of the organization's CEO, with a citation to the organization's website, is legitimate. Besides, you've now gone beyond WP:3RR and are risking getting yourself blocked for edit warring. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

T.H. Tse

Hello! I think, if a Chinese scientist doesn't want to publish his full name to avoid confusion due to different versions of transliteration and thus artificially lowering his or her citation indexes, such request doesn't harm Wikipedia much, and it could well fall into the WP:BLPNAME logic (even though it's not in the rule yet). I would certainly not add the other version of the name, if I knew that this particular academic is specifically trying to avoid publishing different versions of his name in Latin characters at the first place. Moreover, I found his full latinized name only in a primary source, which also suggests that there is no good reason to publish it in Wikipedia.

Therefore, I suggest to remove the longer version of his name's transliteration as requested by the person. --Amakuha (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Amakuha, regardless, this still need to be handled with WP:OTRS LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I approached Wikipedia:Oversight, who decided to suppress my full name from Wikipedia. Thtse.hku (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

John Tesh

Hi there. I’ve had some updates in my life and I thought this would be a good time to update the page. Thanks for monitoring. It would be great to have that info on my page. John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnftesh (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for helping me learn how to set the background of my userpage, in return, i give you this cup of coffee! <- [🔥] Dengmothy (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

About polymathy in academia

You wrote: “Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Polymath. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions.”

Please define "original research or novel synthesis". And SSRN does not count as an outlet? I believe the way it was done is the best format for Wikipedia.

And why is this different from: " In Western Europe, the first work to use polymathy in its title (De Polymathia tractatio: integri operis de studiis veterum) was published in 1603 by Johann von Wowern (de), a Hamburg philosopher.[5][6][7] Von Wowern defined polymathy as "knowledge of various matters, drawn from all kinds of studies [...] ranging freely through all the fields of the disciplines, as far as the human mind, with unwearied industry, is able to pursue them".[5] "

which was edited by me with the same spirit... MikeAraki (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

New reply Feb 2nd:

Did you care to read the text you deleted? Did you compare it with the description for a new synthesis? Did you check what kind of information you left as "reliable"? You are clearly biased. I am putting the very informative and unbiased content back. Do a literature search yourself before doing indiscriminate work and desinforming readers, or write yourself a peer reviewed article on the topic and include it in the entry.

Sorry for the rudeness, I am a little busy. But, anyway, the text clearly is not a new synthesis. Nor does it provide a conclusion "not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Just quickly check the sources, which are all published in peer-reviewed sources except for the last one, which is a Doctoral dissertation. The latter was only added due to the dearth of scholarly research in the field and because it does offer a contribution to the field according to several leading scholars.

Here are Wikipedia's guidelines on "new syntheses":

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "Synthesis of published material Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[i] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."