User talk:Ehaugsjaa

Say Hello

Welcome; please say hello (note - you might want to RIGHT click on that, and open in in a new tab or something - and when you get there, please wait a few mins for a reply) Chzz ► 05:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi, Ehaugsjaa. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 05:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Ehaugsjaa/test.

Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

-- Chzz ► 05:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images 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 • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Passive solar building design do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Web Hamster 06:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Free-range parenting

The article Free-range parenting has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources, does not properly describe how it is different from Slow Parenting. Possibly a merge with Slow Parenting. One sentence Stub.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jcmcc (Talk) 12:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free-range parenting is wholy distinct from slow parenting and should still have it's own page, so I split off the in-depth section in slow parenting discussing it, and merged it into the free-range parenting article. Ehaugsjaa (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free-range parenting

Hey Ehaugsjaa, I just wanted to let you know that I am not trying to frustrate you, only push your editing in the right direction. I am terrible at making content myself (my contribs are almost always red, in that I delete stuff more than add stuff). I think Free-range parenting could be a great article with good citations, clear wording, and lots of effort! If you need any assistance or have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page Jcmcc (Talk) 07:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support Jcmcc450 I am not sure I am the right person to make it a great page, but I just noticed that it is a completely separate concept from slow parenting and it should have it's own entry. So that's at least an improvement over the previous state. Thanks again. Best Ehaugsjaa (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ehaugsjaa. I see that you've been editing articles related to this topic. I wrote the free school movement article and pages on Neill, myself. There is an issue with the "free-range parenting" article—it is a neologism and likely not notable. WP pages don't split off because they are different concepts but because the discrete topic has significant coverage in multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources ("notability"). It sounds like anything that needs to be said on this topic could be done in a section on the neologism creator's page, no? The section should also be based in secondary, reliable sources (newspapers, journal articles, not blog entries). – czar 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Czar, I appreciate it. Free-range parenting is a discrete topic that is in the news, radio, and magazines very regularly in 2015 (at least here in my neck of the woods in the northeast US) and is WP notable. It is not necessarily known that it was coined by Lenore Skenazy and it has now grown beyond her. Many people in 2015 are now aware of the term/concept and it is used widely without people being aware (or needing to be aware) of Skenazy or her original story. So I think it easily meets notability standards for it's own WP article based on the wide use in reputable sources. For example, here is a recent NYTimes article directly mentioning Free-range parenting 3 times including once in the title and once first sentence. And no mention of Skenazy. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/04/13/us/ap-us-walking-children-investigation.html?_r=0 Let me know if you have any advice on the Free-range parenting article or please of course feel free to lend a hand. Again, much appreciated. Ehaugsjaa (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's used as a neologism in the NYT article (it's in quotation marks). I recommend compiling reliable sources that discuss it in depth and building it out as a section within some parent topic article. As it stands, the article Free-range parenting branches into all sorts of areas without reliable sources and relies on original research. – czar 23:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, I understand your point but do not have the time to take on making these improvements at the moment. Perhaps you could put some of your suggestions into the talk page for the free-range parenting article so that someone who *IS* able can take it on. I see this much as the term and WP article for "helicopter parent". Sometimes it is used it in quotes, but it is notable and deserving of a WP article, just as free-range parenting is. There are definitely articles talking *about* the term, not just using it, so it definitely warrants an entry. It's not just a dictionary entry. Maybe it will be a few years yet before original research is done (as with helicopter parents) but I would imagine that will come, given it has been such in the news in 2015. In the meantime, I will gather some refs discussing rather than just using the term. I believe some are listed in the page already. Thanks! Best, Ehaugsjaa (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James, I am learning! For what it's worth... your info was very useful, but the "We at Wikipedia love... " wording comes across as very adversarial. I love evidence based medicine too and I thought I was adding a useful piece of information so I will look for an approved source. An aside... there is a typo on your personal Doc James page -- missing an s. "In 2015 I was elected to the Board of Trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation" Best, Erik

Thanks Erik. Not meant to be adversarial. What suggestions do you have for improving the language of this template? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand if I am supposed to reply here or on your talk page? In any case, 2 issues I had... 1) the "We at Wikipedia" felt to me like an "us vs you" statement. I thought *I* was wikipedia too. I help edit, and I donate! How about "Hi Ehaugsjaa, just letting you know why I deleted your recent edit. Remember that it is especially important when contributing to wikipedia medical and psychiatric pages that we use only cite sources that appear in textbooks or pubmed. Here is a link to an article describing best practices for medical articles... link. BTW, a quick intro... I'm James ___. I'm an ER doctor and I am a very active volunteer Wikipedia contributor and editor of wikipedia medical pages and recently elected to the board of trustees. Let me know if I can help!" Anyway, however you want to do it (obviously!), but the point is: I would think the intention is to make people feel part of a team, not scolded. 2) Linking to the general wikipedia help page you give is not helpful here, but your advice is, very. Especially if found on a medical-specific page (instead of inline in a templated comment) because then that feels much more official and I can find it again and point others to it! Thanks again, Erik Ehaugsjaa (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I am seeing that the MEDHOW link (your 9th link!) is what I was looking for. I would consider skipping the 8 previous links and get right to that, since I didn't even get that far! Ehaugsjaa (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks have adjusted this template some. Template:RSPlease Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]