User talk:Adisaji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Adisaji, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , EvilPhoenix talk 18:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adisaji Talk

Please add your comments (brief) here and don't post or edit my submission pages. Thank you.

[edit] Ecologics

Your comments are well taken, but as a "new member" I need some HELP not immediate rejection. I believe the intent of my submission WAS NOT TO PROMOTE MYSELF, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, or any other ulterior motive. The main focus was to help define the use of the term "Ecologics" which is being randomly used over the years. Everything on wikipedia at some point had a point of origin (original research) -- things that are older have more verifiability and more recent historical phenomenon/processes may not. For example, would we exclude "HIP HOP" music words just because they were "originated" without a clear verifiable process chain? Major corporations pick up on terms like "Whaz Up Yo" but if we found who originated the phrase or the historical material conditions,wouldn't that be of interest to wikipedia audiences? I just need some help and guidance (TIME) to make this submission correct. I hope I get that support.

Alright, Adisaji, I appreciate your being willing to ask for help, and I will help you as much as I can. There is a lot of stuff that comes through the new pages on Wikipedia. Sometimes it is user contributing meaningfully, sometimes it is vandals maliciously attacking Wikipedia, and sometimes it is something that falls somewhere in the middle. When I saw your article, I wasn't sure that it was bad, but I wasn't sure that it was good, so I went ahead and nominated it, mainly hoping that others could give their opinion on the topic...If it was found to be accurate, and could be revised as a stronger article, I would have had no objections to the article staying, and I still don't if these conditions can be met.
That being said, allow me to offer some advice. First, please recognise that Ecologics as it now stands is not at the standard that Wikipedia strives for. This can be addressed, and we will help you understand what needs to be done to the article. If editors see a good-faith attempt to write an article on a reasonably notable topic, they will be much less likely to wish to delete it. Your very act of asking for help is a huge step in the right direction.
Secondly, please do continue to work to improve Ecologics. However, allow me to caution you. You are a new contributor to Wikipedia, and while your contribution is highly valued, you might benefit from taking time to learn a little bit more about what Wikipedia strives for in its articles, and get a better feel for the culture and conventions that are present here. Understanding these will allow you to contribute in a more meaningful way, and I look forward to seeing your work. So, I advise you to work to improve Ecologics, but to not add any more articles just yet...Get to know the wiki a little better first. We will be here to help you with this. Please continue to not be afraid to ask, most people here will be glad to work with someone who is willing to have an open mind and learn.
Lastly, specific to the article. Wikipedia looks to avoid articles that are original research. I believe you understand this, but to attempt to better explain, just to be sure, you need to assert your claims within the article from other sources: books, articles, other websites. If you say "X this is true", you should not merely state that claim, but say "X is true because this person says so" or simply "X is true", with an immediate citation to support your claim. We are looking to find out what sources you are drawing your information from, to ensure the accuracy and thoroughness of the information in the encyclopedia. This is especially true for articles on subjects we are inherently unfamiliar with. I would encourage you to seek out example articles to get a sense of how this is done. I suggest tooth_enamel, it's one that I personally am working on in an attempt to get that article to be a Featured Article. Also check out the Featured Article on the Mainpage, or other featured articles, to get a better sense of what citation on Wikipedia should look like. You need not even worry about formatting it absolutely correctly, just getting it in the article would be a help. I'm going to get off my soapbox now, but I do hope this helps. Do stay in touch, I'll be watching the article closely, and will help you where I can. EvilPhoenix talk 18:55, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! Your comments were heartfelt and I am feeling MUCH BETTER NOW. Honestly, I think I did "jump the gun" in posting the article and I need more time to understand the wikipedia culture and structure. Would you suggest I delete/withdrawl the article (myself) entirely and then really work on this "offline" and then at a latter date submit the article for review if I think it meets the guidelines? I'm beginning to wonder myself whether "Ecologics" might be considered "original research." But, I want to think about this some more. I guess I was really feeling PRESSURE when I saw the "delete" comments posted just one day after I uploaded the submission. I guess my "defensive --ego mode" kicked in. I need some time to read all the wikipedia material much more carefully. I still think wikipedia is an EXCELLENT IDEA AND FORUM,and I want to be a part of the community. talk--Adisaji 02:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Evilphoenix"

We're glad to have you. Glad you're feeling better. As far as the article goes, try adding in some citations to the article text. Just get some stuff in it....information about the sources you used, etc. You can also archive the article text...just go to the edit window of the article, copy out the text, and archive it to something like User:Adisaji/Ecologics. This is a normal and accepted practice for a page up for deletion that a user wants to salvage, it allows you to keep a copy that you can work on and re-submit, should the article end up being deleted. However, I think (but can't guarantee) that the article will be alright. Just go on, add some information about your sources...demonstrating effort to improve the article in face of a VfD goes a long way towards convincing editors not to delete it. Good luck!EvilPhoenix talk 02:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
And if it makes you feel any better, just after I got done writing the above I checked my watchlist to find out a template I created has come up for deletion, after someone found it after I randomly listed it on the stub templates list, so I've been merrily trying to defend my poor little stub template! :-) EvilPhoenix talk 03:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Adisaji, I do not want to discourage you from future work here. I would rescind my vote to delete Ecologics if the following simple improvements are made. (1) References An early academic citation of "Ecologics" is provided, and one subsequent critical article is cited, (2) Place in history its relation to current literature is explained, (3) Definition the article's definition is clarified (it currently states a system of reasoning or logical study(logics)of life processes (eco) which is essentially an ambiguous definition of modern biology or ecology, note "eco" and "logia" in "ecology" as well). These would provide me with enough information to agree that "ecologics" is its own branch of anthropology, biology, philosophy, religion, etc. Amicuspublilius 04:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ecologics, contd.

I'm glad you've started making some changes to the article, that was something I had been waiting on, and was about to ask for, but you're already got that going. But yes, please do what you can to improve the article in the meantime. Cheers, EvilPhoenix talk 03:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC) I've gotten no further comments about all the changes I made to the article. Does the lack of additional comments mean the article is voted for deletion or will it be kept. I don't understand why there was a furor of votes/comments and then dead silence when I tried to rewrite/adjust the submission as requested.--Adisaji 14:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The article survived the VfD. There should be a link about that on the article Talk page. Most people may not have come back to the discussion after participating in voting. EvilPhoenix talk 04:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)