Plato's Dog
May 2012
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear User: ElKevBo,
Dissapointed a fellow scholar would remove valid Ph.D.research based information without a conversation.
How will we expand knowledge as scholars if we eliminate each other’s contributions to help improve the world's knowledge base? There are less than 2 percent of the world's population with Ph.D.'s and few people of this percentage take the time to try to help improve Wikipedia and disseminate valid research based knowledge from refereed journals and professional research presentations. It is undoing people's work without first taking the time to dialogue with the contributor I find most distasteful. Good luck with your Ph.D. and hopefully you will not have the experience of having people eliminate your validated Ph.D. based research because someone finds it not germane and does not show the respect of discussing the issue with you.
- This is an encyclopedia, not a venue to promote obscure journal articles and low-quality videos of academic talks. We welcome your expertise but I encourage you to be more selective and careful about the material you add to articles. In particular, please consider adding material to the body of articles using new references rather than simply adding external links and recommended readings; it's far better that you use your expertise to specifically and explicitly point out useful and interesting knowledge to readers rather than hoping they'll be able to glean it from other sources. ElKevbo (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
It may be useful to recall the meaning of encyclopedia. An elitist concept of what is mainstream and what is obscure sources of knowledge will not help us to challenge the status quo when necessary and become more intelligent. The following is a quote of its meaning from Wikipedia.
"The word encyclopaedia comes from the Koine Greek ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία,[8] from Greek ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία,[9] transliterated enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education": enkyklios (ἐγκύκλιος), meaning "circular, recurrent, required regularly, general"[10] paideia (παιδεία), meaning "education, rearing of a child".[11] but it was reduced to a single word due to an error[12] by copyists of Latin manuscripts. Together, the phrase literally translates as "complete instruction" or "complete knowledge".
“Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.
”—Diderot[13]
You have every right to make your edits and I will not engage in a editing war. My intention was to suggest you perhaps in the future will engage in talk BEFORE eliminating a person's contribution rather then after you eliminate information because you find it 'obscure'. Plato's Dog (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:BRD; in general, many of us prefer to allow some contradictory edits to occur before asking or requiring discussion so we don't gum up the works with unnecessary bureaucracy. You made some edits, I reverted, and now we're discussing them and that's fine. We only run off the tracks when you make edits, I revert, and you revert my reversions in the beginning of an edit war.
- And note that this encyclopedia relies on reliable, published sources and a neutral point of view. Put most bluntly: this is not an appropriate venue to "challenge the status quo." I understand the importance of doing that and I wholeheartedly support your right to do so, just not here. If the common understanding of an issue is incomplete or flawed, you'll have to work outside of Wikipedia to change that before you can come here to document it. I'm sorry if you don't like or accept that but you don't have the right to disrupt this project if you disagree. ElKevbo (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I will end the discussion with two questions to consider, " Does a neutral point of view exist?" and secondly, "What is common understanding?" For instance Global Warming, is not an encyclopedia aimed at showing the different points of view (based on empirical research) because there is a major disjoint in 'common understanding" so the reader can reach a conclusion of how to define and understand a concept? Is there a neutral point of view about Global Warming, Evolution,...?Enjoy your day.
Plato's Dog (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
It is better to engage in discussion, as you did, and User:ElKevbo has answered you, above...(he is right, btw).
Lectonar (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input. Hopefully, we will embrace 'obscure' academic refereed journals consisting of Ph.D.'s from around the world as valid sources of knowledge. The implication, ElKevbo, of your statement about my source being from an 'obscure' journal reinforces a biased status quo that only those in elitist power, in this case you as an editor (and your declaration you are a scholar on your talk page), decide what is knowledge. What is 'obscure' to you is not obscure to the people who have earned Ph.D.'s throughout the world using a living theory mixed method approach for qualitative research. Hopefully, you will realise the value of seeking out 'obscure' sources, which are professionally research based, as valuable sources of knowledge.
I hope Lectonar you agree with ElKevbo regarding his edits not on his view about 'obscure' professional refereed information sources. If we don't embrace 'obscure' sources of knowledge we will often fail to challenge the status quo when it requires it.
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International journal of science ISSN 2225 7063, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://ijosc.net/index.html.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on International journal of science ISSN 2225 7063 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
edit
Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, with less risk of deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. Aaron Booth (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)