User talk:Ngatimozart

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ngatimozart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for HMNZS Kiwi (T102). 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! Epipelagic (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tsunami and seiching occurring simultaneously in a rock walled inlet. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article and resubmit when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. fetchcomms☛ 22:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami and seiching occurring simultaneously in a rock walled inlet.

Hi. The article I wrote is definitely not an essay. It is a article based upon data acquired from original sources as well as secondary sources, one of which is confidential. All theses sources in the article are referenced as per International Scientific Journals protocols exactly to avoid plagiarism. It is an attempt to explain why the harbour responds in the way it does and is the subject of an ongoing long term research project. The reason i wrote it as it is was to explain the locality and then why and what happened. When we look at what has happened in the harbour we have to take into the cortex the very wide geographical area that does have an impact on it. The article was written as part of the assessment for a Masters of Science part 1 (equivalent to a honours year) Any suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Ngatimozart (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)ngatimozart[reply]

Original research

Hi Ngatimozart,

You need to take a long hard look at Wikipedia:No original research. I'm sorry if you find this disappointing, but your new article will not survive without references to reliable sources. If you get this work published in a journal, it would then be possible to construct such an article, although that would take a great deal of care on your part as self-citing can be problematic. As I've said at Talk:Tsunami and seiches in a rock walled inlet, better to delete this article yourself rather than have to go through the AfD process. Mikenorton (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it's been moved back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tsunami and seiching occurring simultaneously in a rock walled inlet by Fetchcomms. Hopefully, this will give you the chance to answer the concerns I expressed about OR. Mikenorton (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things I need to clarify here because the course I am doing requiring the writing of an article for Wikipedia is the first course in a New Zealand university to do this. It is a coastal science course so we tend to think as scientists.

The university learning centre is interested in our feed back and experiences because we are seen as a pilot course. OK with regard to the primary data issue in my article. Some of the data was taken from the Lyttelton Port Company website which streams the tide gauge and meteorological data in real time from its website. To a scientist that is primary source data, but then it is also in the public domain once it is streamed online, so one could argue that it is then a secondary source and verifiable. Also the Port company website has a library on it's website of previous data collected. With regard to the seiche data, that is available on the Mulgor Consulting Ltd website and therefore verifiable as well. Again it is in the public domain. The report written by Mulgor Consulting Ltd for the Lyttelton Port Company was only classified confidential because of a section in the report that has no bearing upon the the science. All the other references were in the public domain, peer reviewed published articles in journals or available from the organisations named. If I had left out the fact that no work had been done on tsunami and seiching in rock walled inlets then possibly this wouldn't have been classified as original research.

It appears to me that there might be a difference in terminology here and how it is applied.

If you use scientific data from a website that is streaming in real time data and that data is used in an article is it original research?

It has been suggested by current course member's that the article assessment be changed so that each article is peer reviewed by three fellow course members before submission. If this was the case would any articles be regarded as verifiable if the course coordinator certify's to you that the articles have indeed been peer reviewed?

For the guidance of future students who will follow this path on this and subsequent courses could you please clarify how situations like this could be averted.

Thank you.Ngatimozart (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

My take on this is as follows (others may disagree, but it's what I take from the 'original research' policy on Wikipedia). It's fine to take a publicly available dataset and produce a graph to illustrate an article like File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png, in fact it's actively encouraged. However, if you take the same data and interpret it in some way, then that's original research and expressly forbidden here on Wikipedia. You might like to raise this on the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard to get a more definitive opinion. An alternative would be to identify either a 'missing article' in your area of interest or a stub and aim at producing an article at least to good article status. That would be very helpful to Wikipedia and hopefully would meet the aims of your course at least in part. I hope that this helps, we need all the knowledgeable editors we can get. Mikenorton (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ngatimozart. You have new messages at Fetchcomms's talk page.

You can remove this notice at any time by removing this code. fetchcomms☛ 20:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. Much appreciated. I will keep this in mind.

HMNZS Kiwi (T102)

Thanks Ngatimozart. I much appreciate your input to the article HMNZS Kiwi (T102). Were you actually there! A problem with Wikipedia is that additions you make must be supported by a reliable source. This is not to say that you aren't a reliable source, just that maybe your additions don't satisfy the bureaucratic requirements for a "reliable source". You could add your significant and interesting recollections to the talk page of the article, where at least they won't be interfered with. Best regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epilpelagic, no I wasn't there, but I served on HMNZS Kiwi P3554 when it was based at Lyttelton as the ship for HMNZS Pegasus and we were instructed on our history and battle honours. I think I have a published history but I will have to search it out. I have met some of the original old salts who served on the first Kiwi and we have committed one of the old salts ashes to the deep after his crew mates took him on a final run ashore. Ngatimozart (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)ngatimozart[reply]