User talk:Envelopenomia

ASMR

Hey there! I understand that you want the ASMR article to stick around, but adding lots of "references" to Reddit posts, Facebook groups, and other similar sources is probably going to hurt your cause more than help it. You should probably read Wikipedia:Notability in order to review what's appropriate. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh, I appreciate the advice. I have read through the Notability list, and really think there is no foundation to post this article as a standalone on the sensation itself. I do think there may be merit in posting it as a reference to the term, and believe there are enough secondary sources to demonstrate this, (which is why I was posting community sites, as an example, but I do see that at least two are primary sources, so I'll have to take those down). I'm going to review the whole thing carefully this weekend to see what would be appropriate, and what wouldn't, and will rewrite the article. Also, I do have secondary sources in non-English sites - do you think these would be appropriate to list as examples of the use of the term, even though this is the English entry? Envelopenomia (talk) 14:48, September 22, 2011

Also, please read WP:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification and do what you can to stop the stealth campaign. Each new posting from folks who don't understand the criteria for good articles emphasizes the weakness of your position. Joja lozzo 12:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jojalozzo, I'm not campaigning. The only mention I've made of this outside Wikipedia is to tell people who were getting really angry that there *is* merit to the deletion discussion, that if they feel that the article should exist, they can vote on it, but that they should first read the Notability guidelines (I was very sure to call this out and provide a link). The Reddit discussion I mentioned this on was not initiated by me (as I'm sure you've already read for yourself). If people are ignoring this and voting, I can't stop that. People aren't reading my source material either, or reading the comments that this article should be about the term, and not the thing the term references - they keep spouting about how it's not science and I don't have the right - this is the nature of a community project. I've done my best to try to ensure people don't vote without understanding the guidelines, when it was obvious they were already looking at the deletion page.

If I *wanted* to campaign, I could successfully do so to thousands of people in just a few minutes. I have not done so. It is not my intent to gain many votes in favor without logic supporting the decision. If I read a compelling argument against the article's existence, I'll change my own vote. So far, the summary is a vast disgust with something people don't understand, and some vague arguments about requiring third party sources (there are already some in the reference list, and I will add others I've found via Google (yes, true, legitimate third party sources talking about the term 'autonomous sensory meridian response' - you can Google it yourself and find pages and pages of material of people discussing the term, using it, etc.), but nobody has specifically listed the validity, (or lack of), of the sources currently listed in conjunction with documenting the term's existence (all the arguments have been about how there are no peer reviewed papers on the sensation - that's stated right in the article!). As I mentioned to Josh, I'm going to review the secondary sources very carefully this weekend, the content of the article, the information that *isn't* yet there but should be if it is to be kept, and correct anything that doesn't seem in line with the intent of Wikipedia. I will get a fuller list of secondary sources - there are many not yet in the ref list - and will add those. Then, whatever happens, happens. I'll have done my best to document this for all the people who keep looking for information on what the term means. If it's deleted, then I'll add it later when there is sufficient means to fulfill the determining requirements. It's not some big conspiracy or battle to make up a random term just for the fun of it. People are actively using it, and other people (on every continent except Antarctica, and yes, I can add some sources for that) want to know more about it. That's what I was trying to do with this article - help people get information. I'm clearly not writing this article well, so I'm going to educate myself on how to do that, but I wish the Wiki dogs of war would ease up for a moment - I'm not 'the enemy', I'm just a person trying to post information to the wonderful community compendium of our collective knowledge. I could use your help, Jojalozzo - please, I'm not trying to destroy Wikipedia. If you see a specific reference site that has an issue, and I have misunderstood 'third party source', call it out on this talk page, and I'll remove or discuss until I understand the reasoning. I do know two will have to go already, but there are many that I think are legitimate. If not, someone who can logically and unemotionally explain why would really help me out here! I don't enjoy spending my time arguing this - if it's not appropriate, let's take it down, but so far I just don't see that as the case, you know? Envelopenomia (talk) 14:48, September 22, 2011

None of the sources in the article are reliable. Please read the guidelines for references carefully. Blogs, forums, and other self-published material are not reliable. Even the opinion piece from the Daily Negraskan is just that - opinion - not a reliable source. Notability will not be determined by a load of references to unreliable sources no matter how many we pile on. Please hear and understand, you're wasting your time unless you can locate the needed sources. Joja lozzo 17:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ASMR again

FYI and we don't capitalize things unless they are proper nouns. Please understand that Wikipedia is only supposed to publish what has been WP:V in WP:RS. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Biosthmors - the term is a name in popular use, so I consider it like a proper noun. You removed pertinent information about the general term usage (that it indicates both a sensation experienced with or without visual or other external stimuli) when removing my caps edit, so I readded this. If the detail itself is a concern, I can add references to accounts of this, if that's needed and appropriate, but it is a general description of the term and how it has been used since it was created up until today. If you leave the 'characterized as a distinct, pleasurable tingling sensation often felt in the head, scalp or peripheral regions of the body in response to various visual and auditory stimuli', then the detail about it also being non-external is in the same classification of data. Envelopenomia (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Example on the proper noun, and what I was thinking (though truly, I'm not that concerned about either style approach): "For example, Mountain Bluebird does not identify a unique individual, and it is not a proper name but a so-called common name (somewhat misleadingly, because this is not intended as a contrast with the term proper name). Such capitalization indicates that the term is a conventional designation for exactly that species (Sialia currucoides),[17] not for just any bluebird that happens to live in the mountains." - this is from the proper noun article. Envelopenomia (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please use reliable sources when adding content to this article. I'm going to revert with the expectation you'll add some sources to verify these facts. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider reliable sources? Can you explain what reliable sources are listed for the prior portion of the sentence, 'characterized as a distinct, pleasurable tingling sensation often felt in the head, scalp or peripheral regions of the body in response to various visual and auditory stimuli'? The entire thing is all one statement, concerning the location and circumstances that the community at large describes as the sensation of ASMR. Where is the source for the first portion of this statement, that does not include the last, and how is it more reliable than the dozens of other sources that do include the last portion that I attempted to add to make the article more complete? I've reposted using one of the already listed references, which directly discusses the sentences I've added. Envelopenomia (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response#.22type_A.22_and_.22type_B.22. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the "type A" and "type B" descriptions have been cited in reliable sources I would agree they shouldn't go in the lead. They should probably be mentioned in the body along with the citations though. Would you want to write about those, Envelopenomia? I read about them on the research site but never focused on them much since I didn't fully understand the difference between the two types and was in such a rush to get this article posted so that I wouldn't fail my neuroscience class I was writing it for, lol. But I understand you're the one who coined the term in the first place and should have more say in the description; the one in the lead is just the summary I came up with after reading through all the ASMR publicity/articles. I think the overall description in the lead paragraph needs to be broad and still capture all features of ASMR without describing the specific details. What if we changed it to "in response to various visual, auditory and cognitive stimuli" ? DevonJamesKing (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

FYI, the WP:LEAD only summarizes what is already mentioned in the article. Please don't add content only to the lead. It should go in the body first, then perhaps summarized in the lead. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]