User talk:Slehar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
Meelar (talk) 18:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Steve, in creating an article about yourself, Steven Lehar, you are automatically placing it in danger of being deleted. See Don't create articles about yourself and Avoid self-references for the applicable Wikipedia policies. Please see Wikipedia's deletion policy to familiarize yourself with various reasons an article may be evaluated for possible deletion, and Votes for deletion for the procedure involved. I am not nominating the article at this time, but you should be aware that someone else may do so. If your work is considered notable, you should have no problem finding someone else to write an article about it, and using references to support the entry. Your work may indeed be significant, but I am sure you understand the problems inherent in open editing making it possible for anyone to create a vanity page, which the policy is intended to supress. Additional information you may find useful are the policy on no original research, and the guideline on vanity pages. --Blainster 21:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Blainster. Thank you for your feedback. Although I am brand new as a contributer to Wikipedia, I was aware of the vanity articles rule, and the risk of rapid deletion of my new page Steven Lehar. In this case however I would plead special circumstances. My work is being actively ignored by the scientific establishment because it runs counter to some widely held paradigmatic assumptions, which however turn out to be outright wrong, as I can demonstrate to any reasonable-minded person. The fact that I am not a merely a self-delusional kook is demonstrated by the fact that two of my papers have actually been published in peer reviewed journals, they make very significant bold claims, and yet the feedback from the community has been almost complete silence, or "ignore-ance". I see from your user page that you have an interest in consciousness, and thus you are in a position to make a judgment on my theories. I urge that you check out my on-line illustrated Cartoon Epistemology to get the general thrust of my main theory, or you can read my recent paper on Gestalt Isomorphism for a more formal presentation. The fact is that my Representationalist position is very often discounted as thoroughly implausible, (as seen for example on the Representationalism page) because nobody has heard the counter-arguments to objections like the Homunculus fallacy. The fact that I present a significant philosophical position which is widely and unjustifiably ignored in the literature is, in my view, justification for my having to unfortunately present it myself. As you say on your own user page, sometimes, under special circumstances, it is valid to Ignore all rules. To see the absurd and indefensible series of objections to the Representationalist thesis, check out this debate on the PSYCHE-D mailing list, the outrageous objections by reviewers of my Gestalt Isomorphism paper, the absurd comments by commentators in the open peer review of my paper, and contrast that with the reviews of my book including "I think it is reasonable to suggest that The World in Your Head is a seminal work that is destined to become a fixture in the conceptual landscape which no one seriously interested in the study of perception can reasonably ignore. It's hypotheses, models, implications, and extensions are likely to influence investigators for decades to come. It is obviously a 'must read' for anyone interested in visual perception...". I think that material deserves exposure on Wikipedia even before it is recognized widely elsewhere.--Slehar 14:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Page titles
(I sent the following question on page titles to (talk) )
- If I discover a page whose name does not abide by the conventions, e.g. [[Berlin School]], which should actually be [[Berlin school]], (second word in no-caps) should I bother to rename the page to what it should be? (Would that screw up other links to that same page?) Or should I just link to [[Berlin School]] and leave it at that? Slehar 15:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
In cases like that, there should be a tab called "move page" somewhere--use that. I believe it's disabled unless you have a certain number of edits (can't remember off the top of my head), so until then, you can just let it sit, or use Wikipedia:Requested moves. Best wishes and keep editing, Meelar (talk) 15:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- As far as naming conventions go, the rule is that things go by the name they're most commonly known as. For example, if there were only one person named John Wood, he would go there. If that's unavailable (e.g. there's more than one thing with the same name), then you move to the most specific possible name (perhaps John Travers Wood). Since there's no other article at Berlin School, that title should be fine. Hope this helps explain things--if not, feel free to ask me again. Best, Meelar (talk) 18:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)