User talk:PHCleverley

PHCleverley, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PHCleverley! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Corporate Brain has been accepted

Corporate Brain, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Corporate Brain

Hello, PHCleverley,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Corporate Brain should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Brain .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Salimfadhley (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Salimfadhley I am working hard to address the issues raised (and yes I am new to Wikipedia)!

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Structural information theory

Hi. This may be a long shot, but by any chance would you have the background to be able to review Structural_information_theory? It's related to cognitive science. It's a rather esoteric topic, it was substantially written by a single editor, all directly relevant sources cite back to a single researcher, and I'm concerned it may not reflect accepted mainstream science. Not currently in the article, but related, was a theory of "transparallel" classical computation that supposedly could match the power of quantum computers, and a fringe-sounding hypothesis that it explained consciousness. I'm not sure Structural_information_theory is a real topic, beyond the work of one person and his colleagues. Alsee (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (talk) thanks for the request. Unfortunately my background is more information & organizational science. I think you are right to be suspicious given some of the words you mention above however. For any little known, new or emerging theory I think the initial focus for notability could perhaps be on peer reviewed literature (and in good tier #1 journals). Literally anyone can write a book these days and there are so many peer reviewed journals that are not peer reviewed at all. So its a reasonable question to ask the editor/author to indicate in what peer reviewed journal was the theory first proposed? Their first reference is to a very recent book, not a journal. If they do provide the journal, paper name and authors, you should be able to easily assess the quality and notability of the theory by the journal ranking. If they can't produce a good peer reviewed journal, then you could argue the theory has not been 'accepted' by the expert scholars in the field as something of value to the body of knowledge. Hope this helps. PHCleverley (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. I'll see if anyone at Project Psychology responds. Tip: if you were trying to trigger a new message alert for me, [[User talk:Alsee|talk]] doesn't work. The software detects the [[User:Alsee]] link, in an edit-save containing a ~~~~ signature. The |Alsee part is optional. Super-secret-pipe-trick-tip: [[Help:Pipe trick|]] automatically expands to [[Help:Pipe trick|Pipe trick]] = Pipe trick. Usernames are usually just copy-pasted anyway, but the pipe trick works on any link with a colon. Alsee (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new editor experience

Try not to take the AFD discussion too negatively. We "welcome" new editors, but that welcome general takes the form of inviting people to jump into the deep end of the pool to sink or swim. Chuckle. Editors are often swift, firm, and blunt making a case. That way the comment stands on its own, and they can just move on to whatever else they're doing. When Wikipedia was new people could start new a few crappy sentences on easy obvious topics to get an article started. Now all the easy topics are filled, and expectations for new articles are a lot higher. The learning curve is a lot easier when people start with general editing on existing articles. You've done a good job upgrading and sourcing etc. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I might add that you did a good job of taking on feedback from other users and then fixing the problems with the article. A lot of editors would simply give up after that trial. Well done for sticking at it. AFD debates don't always end in positive resolutions but I'm glad this one did. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou User:Alsee and User:Salimfadhley. I appreciate this feedback and support. I'm used to some harsh challenges and criticism which is the nature of academic peer review so that's fine. It just took me a while to find out certain protocols, what is allowed and what is not. I should have probably read more of the guidelines and practised more before trying to create a new page, but have learnt a lot very quickly by going through this exercise. PHCleverley (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]