User talk:Mysterymethod

Welcome!

Hello, Mysterymethod, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms[edit]

Hello again, Mysterymethod. I'm glad you've continued to contribute to Wikipedia. We encourage all users to be bold in updating pages. However since many newcomers are often confused by our policies, they may wonder why their contributions are being reverted or deleted. That's the topic of this message.

I noticed you are creating articles that explain the meanings of terms related to the seduction community and Mystery Method. In particular:

These terms are neologisms. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that makes them inappropriate for inclusion as the topic of a Wikipedia article, and they will likely be deleted. As a fan of MM and seduction community material, I would be sad to see the content gone though. My suggestion is that you incorporate the content in these articles into the Mystery Method article itself.

If you have any questions, feel free to post them on my talk page. Thanks.

--Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks like the AFD got started while I was in the process of writing the messages below. I agree it might be better, for now, to incorporate an explanation of those terms into the Mystery Method or Erik von Markovik article, instead of having separate articles on them. Perhaps Peacocking, though, could have enough information to warrant an article. I would be fine with deleting the other three (until when/if a longer article could be written on them), and expanding Peacocking; how does that sound to both of you? Question for Mysterymethod: do you think it makes more sense to put those terms on the Mystery Method page or on the Erik von Markovik page? --SecondSight 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Related pages[edit]

Hi there, good job adding more pages for community terms, and thanks for the props. Here are some tips:

If you make a really short pages with no citations, then they are at risk for speedy deletion. To learn to make pages that aren't at risk of deletion, check out the policies: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research for a start. Expanding pages so they are longer will also help. Peacocking got speedy deletion proposed, but I think I will be able to save it. I see that by the time you got to the Last minute resistance page, you have started to add references, which is good. Citations need to be from reliable published sources, like books or news articles. I compiled a list of some news articles on the archive of the seduction community talk page, which may prove useful. If any of the community terms are mentioned in news articles, that is a good thing to cite.
When you wikify the link to Mystery's article, don't write it like this: [[Mystery]], because that will send people to the generic Mystery page. Instead, write [[Erik von Markovik|Mystery]]. That sends people to the Erik von Markovik page, but calls the link "Mystery." The vertical bar is used to call a link something different than what it links to.
Avoid commercial links whenever possible, because they can put pages at risk for deletion. Not every page with Mystery's stuff needs to link to the MM website, for instance. Those pages link back to Erik von Markovik anyway, which does have the link, so if someone is interested they can find his official site from there. Also, you may have noticed what went on at the Real Social Dynamics page, where someone from the company repeatedly went in and replaced the whole page with advertising from RSD's website, which is a big no-no.
In case you haven't noticed from the edit history of the Seduction Community page among others (which took quite a battle to get going), there have been a lot of people on wikipedia who dislike pages on the community, and have been giving us a hard time. Someone might put one of the pages you made on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.
Keep it up, and if you have any further questions, you are welcome to leave message on my talk page. If you create more pages, I suggest leaving a brief message on my talk page so I know what's up, because I am watching over community-related pages and working on improving them.

--SecondSight 00:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incoroprating terms into MM site[edit]

It can be done, but although many of the terms were coined by mystery, they are really property of the whole community and are widely used throughout. I can add more references if need be, and over the course of the next day, plan on tripling the length and breadth of the explanations on each term. Does this sound a reasonable alternative to merging all of the terms onto the mystery method main page?

Mystery Method 01:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It does to me, though I don't know if others will agree. Also, when expanding the pages, remember to cite reliable sources, like news articles. Keep in mind the policy from Wikipedia:Verifiability, that the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability (being confirmed by reliable secondary sources), not truth. If you expanded the pages with information that was completely true, but was not verified in some way, then it would not count. Good luck; if you need help, leave me a message and I might be able to take a look. --SecondSight 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]