User talk:Meesier42
Welcome!
Hello, Meesier42, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
WatermanFF
[edit]Are you the same editor as WatermanFF2 (talk · contribs) and WatermanFF3 (talk · contribs)?
If so, please read WP:Sockpuppet, particularly the sections Legitimate uses of alternate accounts and Alternate account notification, then please tag each page per the instructions. I'm happy to help out if there's anything you don't understand.
If not, then please review your edit to Swimfin. I should draw your attention to the requirement that questionable statements of fact must be verifiable from reliable third-party published sources – the manufacturer's website is not acceptable for that. It is perfectly acceptable to cite a manufacturer's website to source facts about the manufacturer, or their opinions of themselves. Claims which are of a scientific or medical nature will need to be backed up by reference to studies published in peer-reviewed journals, or similar. I'm happy to help you in improving the encyclopedia in any way I can, but material which appears promotional and has no reliable source to substantiate it will be removed. --RexxS (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Meesier42
[edit]I am not the same user as WatermanFF or any of the variations of that name. I have no monetary interest in the company. I openly admit that I am a staunch supporter of the fins they produce, but I do my best not to allow that to affect my objectivity of the subject. There is simply too much opinion on the topic and too little real data, in my discussions with more than one author of the published data, they have openly admitted that their "scientific process" was badly flawed by funding and lack of implementing the tenets of exercise theory. Exercise theory clearly states that no matter how easy, difficult or awkward, a human can become extremely efficient at any movement with practice. This applies to fins, as changing the fins that a diver is using requires a retraining of the muscles and without an effective period of acclimatization the data will show poor performance, in 10 years of objective analysis, I have found the plateau with fins occurs at about 4-6 hours of use, although this use may be periodic, it must be uncorrupted by use of different fins. I have read every scientific study I can get my hands on with great interest and have had discussions with the primary authors of many of them. The study that I cite for the function of the FF's was an independent study performed at San Diego State University by a non-sponsored doctoral graduate. The findings were reproduced on the ForceFin website with permission from the author and I am attempting to track down the original publishing date and source.
- Thank you for your response. I'll be as clear as I can: the requirement is that citations are made to sources that are published independently. The section of WP:Verifiability you need to look at is:
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
- The forcefin.com site is not third-party, and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the way that a peer-reviewed journal or a quality newspaper has. If you are unsure about the reliability of any source in a particular context, you can ask at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. An accepted doctoral thesis does qualify as a reliable source (see WP:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship), but you will naturally understand that your personal opinion and analysis is not acceptable (see WP:Original research).
- I won't revert your additions at present, so that you have time to find the reliable source, but I will remove the citation to forcefin.com and tag your text with "citation needed" as at the moment it is unsourced by our standards. I should explain that any editor can remove challenged material at any time, and the burden is on you to justify its inclusion. Should that happen, you are advised to find sources before you attempt to re-insert the text. Failure to do so will be considered edit-warring and may lead you to being blocked. I do not want to see any editor who sincerely wishes to improve the encyclopedia blocked, so I've done my best to explain why you need to adhere to the standards that we have all agreed. --RexxS (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)