User talk:Wikigonish/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Wikigonish! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Ozzy

Stop adding your ref to the Ozzy Osbourne page. It is un-needed information that just reiterates the statements made above. Your ref is almost worded as an advertisement for the guy who wrote it. Please leave it out of the article. Undeath (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It presents NEW information relating Ozzy to Aleister Crowley and the media attention that they both received in the light of accusations of Satanism. This is NOT already present in the article as it stands. I will re-word to avoid sounding like an "advertisement," but the reference ought to stand. Read the article and you'll see.Wikigonish (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's a new argument, it's by a non notable scholar. Undeath (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if the scholar is "notable" or not? In this case, it is the article that is important to the context of the controversial relationship between Ozzy and Satanism. The article is published in an academic, peer-reviewed journal so it has already been recognized by editors who are themselves scholars. I don't see anything in Wikipedia's guidelines that says relevant information should be excluded from an article because its written by a non-notable scholar. If this was the case, then most of the articles in Wikipedia should be removed. This argument doesn't make any sense to me. 1) The article relates directly to the life of Ozzy. 2) The article is written by a scholar and published in a recognized academic journal. 3) As an academic article, it brings together information that is well-sourced and based on some kind of research. 4) the addition of this article provides information that would be of interest to many Ozzy fans (such as myself). 5) the article furthers the aims of Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia, in expanding the accessibility to further knowledge of the subject. So, why does it matter who wrote it???

The scholar MUST be notable. If the scholar is not important, I could say what ever I wanted about Ozzy, put it on the web, and be quoted here. The information will remain off of the page. If you continue to add the information, you will be blocked from editing. Consider this the final warning. Undeath (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a serious error here. An academic journal is NOT the same thing as just writing something on a website. In order to get something published in an academic journal, the paper must be reviewed by at least two other scholars...experts. Publication in an academic journal means that the paper has been recognized as authoritative. If the three of you who keep blocking me from adding a recognized, academic source are emblematic of the way authority is determined on Wikipedia, then it is no wonder that most university professors won't let students use it as an authoritative source! The reference that I am attempting to add is an article which has been published in a recognized, peer-reviewed academic journal. It is definitely NOT some guy's blog or whatever. You need to do your research about what you are blocking from being in Wikipedia, because what you're doing right now is actually blocking authoritative information of direct relation to the section of the Wiki-article in question.Wikigonish (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all academic journals are notable. Just because they are looked over by an expert does not make it notable. Give me the name of the two experts who reviewed the journal plus the guy who wrote the journal entry and I'll see if there is anything half way notable to them. If not, then the ref will stay off of the article. Undeath (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you decide if a journal is "notable" or not? You can look at the journal's webpage and see the editorial board of the journal. Many of these are full professors, so are experts in the field. As a peer-reviewed journal, it includes the authority of experts working collectively under the authority of the editorial board. I don't know exactly who reviewed it, but you can look at the editorial board members and see where they teach and who they are.Wikigonish (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With no further replies, I assume this discussion has ended. Wikigonish (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie

Hi. In reviewing my Edit Summary from the edit I made yesterday, I notice that I wrote, "the cited source does indicate that merely "some" in the s. community dismiss tetrodoxin as such." This was in an error on my part, and apparently the rationale for your revert, as it should've said " the cited source does not indicate...". Sorry for the typo on my part. Nightscream (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have tried to change the wording again in order to be the most clear in what the article says. Terrence Hines does not speak for the entire scientific community so the article cannot state that "The scientific community dismisses" something based on one scientist's opinion. I've noted that Hines is a neurologist in order to get across the idea that at least one scientist rejects Davis' theory. Wikigonish (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just updating this short thread to note that someone else edited this section of the Zombies article in a way that manages both of our positions, I think.Wikigonish (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Wikigonish, your talkpage was automatically redirected to the archive page when you moved it there. This means that people trying to communicate with you were being sent to a page that looks like it is not intended to be edited. I have replaced the redirect with a simple link in the archive box in an attempt to be helpful. If you do not feel it so or otherwise wish it for any reason, please feel free to revert or delete this message. Regards. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I obviously made some mistakes with how I was trying to get some conversations archived. I didn't want to see all three discussions archived, just the opnes that were finished. I'll need to read more into how to create and manage archives! I really appreciate your help.Wikigonish (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Got it all figured out properly this time. Thanks again.Wikigonish (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]