User talk:SpecOp Macavity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello SpecOp Macavity, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you contribute to our articles here...we need all the people we can get :D. Some guidlines that may help you are:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Chooserr

Contents

[edit] Hi!

Hey mac :) happy to see you about :) Cheers! -- Skotte 10:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wog Derivative

It needs some references and links which I can promptly steal for my webpage! --Hartley Patterson 22:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. What you sent I'll add, I'll leave you to update on Wikipedia. This is rather like Scientology, just when I think I know everything something totally out the box pops up :-) --Hartley Patterson 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wog

I had already looked at your Talk pages and "references". Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources-- "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." Note also that [1] has six or more fairly incoherent attempts at definition. If this isn't a neologism, what is? -- Mwanner | Talk 21:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you accept that the wiki is not a reliable source. The problem with [2] is that the term wog is nowhere immediately evident. It also appears to be a commercial forum site-- forums are also not reliable sources. And your familiarity with the term is OR, and thus not useful. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
What is this, if not commercial content? And what is this, if not a forum? Finally, sure, the word wog appears on the site, but where is the definition? Please point me to the source for the definition that you keep trying to insert in the article. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

What I really think would help a lot would be for you to read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources slowly and carefully from beginning to end. I'll try to give you what I see as the salient points, though.

"A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event."

"In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material."

"A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative."

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor."

"Check multiple independent sources"

"Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."

"The policy page that governs the use of sources is Wikipedia:Verifiability. About self-published sources, which includes books published by vanity presses, and personal websites, it says: "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

etc., etc.

For the purposes of this issue, I believe that your only sources are a wiki and a personal website that constitutes an unreliable "primary source".

Please let me know if you want to cite other sources. I have no ax to grind here, other than trying to make Wikipedia as a realiable encyclopedia. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


I like your suggested solution, with one reservation-- I've spelled it out on Talk:Wog. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Gross

I'd like to make a counter-suggestion: why don't you write an article on Peak Learning? "Invisible university" is just one term from that book; surely an article on the book itself will cover more ground and meet more of a need. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommending copying it to your user-space, actually, perhaps to User:SpecOp Macavity/Peak Learning. You can work on the article there and then when it's ready (a good rough draft) you can copy it to article space for further development. I'd also advise letting people know at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invisible university that you'll do this, so that no one thinks you're copying it to user-space just to dodge AfD (which people have done, sadly...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)