Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Human territory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

mikka,

Subject: original research

I have removed the scatterplots, which were created by myself. The rest could hardly be called original research. If you have any other concerns, please let me know?Badenoch 20:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the scatterplots is not original research and may be added to some other wikipedia articles. This remark shows that you seriously misunderstand what original research is. `'mikka 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Subject: reason for creating the page "human territory"

When exploring wikipedia, I noticed that it had a good article on territorial animals, but for human territorial behaviour it asked the reader to see the page called "intruder", which was only a stub. The "intruder" page was a poor substitute as it only deals with two topics:

1 Criminal entry to a premisis

2 Anal intrusion (sodomy)

This lead the reader to associate human territorial behaviour with criminal activity and anal intrusion. I hoped to create a more relevant and informative pageBadenoch 23:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

THis is the point. You must first find reliable academic sources about "human territorial behaviour" first, and only then wrtite an article, not out of yoiur own head, but from reliable sources. In your text you are confusing many unrelated things. And you don't even begin to suspect what it actually is about (and I ani't going to teach you). Why don't you start writing articles about less fundamental things which you really know about? Another job you may do is to expand existing articles with new information you found elsewhere. `'mikka 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this so please be patient. I hope that I am able to please you, and meet any requirements that you have:

Is human territory a topic worthy of being in an encyclopaedia? Yes, other encyclopaedia’s discuss the topic. At home I have a copy of the Oxford Children’s Encyclopaedia. It discusses territories on page 113 of volume 5. It mostly discusses animal territories and briefly mentions human territories.

Am I qualified? I have three Science degrees (BSc, MSc & PhD), though I must confess that I first learnt about human territories at school. That said, I believe that I do know what a human territory is and also know about the surrounding science.

Your request about academic sources. In academic literature scientists don’t discuss fundamentals at the most simple level, but I may make enquires to see if someone has done this. Perhaps other encyclopaedias may make such simple statements, which could provide additional assistance.

I realise that I an new and must adjust to the wikipedia style. If you could write more plainly about specific areas of concern, I would really appreciate it, as thus far you have disputed no factual detail.

Badenoch 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)