User talk:Praneetmek
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Praneetmek, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The article Annular Theory (Vailan Theory) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not science, and not a notable fringe theory.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Annular Theory (Vailan Theory)
[edit]Hello, Praneetmek
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Annular Theory (Vailan Theory), should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annular Theory (Vailan Theory).
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Do not remove this one, if you do I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Hi Slatersteven. My article on Annular Theory was marked for deletion for only having one core proponent, but I have found other sources to back up the claim that I.N. Vail made. Additionally, I believe that this theory is just as viable as other unproven scientific theories, such as the big bang theory, where there is supposed scientific evidence but nothing has been concretely proven. Understandably, my article didnt have enough sources, but I do have other sources which I can add in. Praneetmek (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't wish to be rude, nor to bore you with restatements of the obvious, but it seems necessary to say here that the AfD unambiguously established Wikipedia's consensus view and that was to leave the link as a redirect. This means that you are not mandated to recreate the material, undo the redirect, or place a large amount of material about the theory in the biography of Vail. All of that is basically acting against consensus, which we call editwarring, something explicitly forbidden by policy. We are happy to discuss evidence but the consensus, a very recent one at that, is that the available evidence, not only the sources you provided, is not sufficient for a full article on the subject. If you wish to change the consensus the route is discussion, not editwarring. I do hope this is clear. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: I apologize as I am still currently new to the Wiki community. I didn't mean to editwar, I understood the points being brought up about this concept being mainly from a single proponent, I.N.Vail. In his Wiki page, there was already a brief sentence about Annular Theory, and considering that the goal of Wikipedia is to be a databse of all knowledge, felt that the information that he and others have published was relevant enough to be included in the biographical article about him. Please let me know your thoughts on this.Praneetmek (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Sorry to spam you with messages, but I see you made an edit about I.N. Vail's theory in the page for flood geology and gave a very brief overview of I.N. Vail's Theory. I believe that the model I describe gives a more direct description of Vail's views on the subject. I can edit my changes to reflect more that it was Vail's model if needed Praneetmek (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Another idea I just had was to write an article on the book that he published and describe the theory in terms of that book. Praneetmek (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- One ping would be more than sufficient, but thanks for discussing. The trouble is that Vail's views on Annular Theory have been determined to be barely notable, and insufficient for an article: they are already covered briefly in the Vail article and in Flood geology; no more detail is required in either place, and any attempt to add more in those places would rightly be seen as a violation of WP:COATRACK. Further, the sources that you have used have been determined to be unreliable, as they are basically pushing a pseudoscience point of view (strictly forbidden). I do not believe that any amount of "editing your changes" will overcome these fundamental obstacles: while Vail is a notable figure, the details of his views, and especially any attempt to justify or "prove" or support them, would be unencyclopedic. I'm sorry but there is no future in the project; I don't know why you want to spend time on it, but I hope it is not a belief in the pseudoscientific theory itself: you are free to believe what you want, but you mustn't try to exercise that belief here on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: I personally do not believe in the pseudoscience that Vail is trying to explain, I'm rather just describing his theory of things. It's like an article about Flat Earth. While that is considered pseudoscience, the article is written to educate others what exactly this concept is, not to persuade them to believe the theory. Praneetmek (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it. In that case, you need to appreciate that you cannot use Vail's own writings, other than very briefly to establish basic facts of his claims (as the Vail and Flood geology articles have already done, to completion). You also cannot use Creationist sources which historically tried to "prove" Vail's theories, as these are not reliable. That leaves any reliable, independent, scientific sources which are properly critical of Vail. I think you will find there are very few of these, and I already cited them in the Vail article. As I've now said repeatedly, I do not think you will get anywhere with attempting to explain, elucidate, clarify, or educate on these failed ideas; they are of some historical interest, which is why they are in the Vail and Flood geology articles, but that is as far as they should go; and it's as far as you should go here on Wikipedia, too, or you'll get blocked, possibly permanently. Please drop the stick now, as we've now written an absurdly long thread on what is an extremely clear-cut case: this is pseudoscience and we can't have it advocated on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: If I were to write an article about Vail's main publication of the Annular Theory and in the synopsis section describe the theory in his own words, and point to the fact that this in fact is pseudoscience, why would that not be acceptable to Wikipedia's guidelines? Also, I have used no creationist sources in my article. I cited papers published by reputable sources, as well as Vail's article and another article which I mentioned was created to summarize Vail's 400 page book. Agreeably, my wording may have been sub-optimal as it seems like I was trying to push these ideas towards the audience, but I can reword the article to make it clear that these were Vail's ideas and not mine.
Additionally, I am trying to understand why my proposed changes do not follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I am not pushing fact but rather summarizing the ideas of another person. I am simply trying to have a civil discussion, so if there are any of wiki's guidelines I am breaking by trying to understand why an article on Vail's book isnt valid that will get me banned from using this website, please inform me. Praneetmek (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Pointing out that it's pseudoscience we have already done, in two articles already: and they both have sufficient descriptions, we don't need a third, and the third has already been scrubbed at AfD so CONSENSUS IS AGAINST YOU. If you agree to use no creationist source and rely on Vail (a WP:PRIMARY source in this context, so to be used VERY LITTLE if at all), you are left as I already said with almost nothing to use. Rewording won't help as your problem is the absence of sources. I really do hope this is clear; if not, please go away and think about it for a while until the ideas of consensus and reliable, independent, secondary sourcing come clear in your mind. I have repeatedly named the policies you need to understand and I'm getting tired of mentioning them again and again: WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY are the key ones. You will not be "banned" for discussing within reason (I suppose if you repeatedly go on about it on article talk pages you could possibly be asked to stop by an admin, that would be quite an accomplishment) but you may soon run out of people willing to spend time repeating themselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Feedback
[edit]Hi Praneetmek, I see you may have run into some trouble in the Wikipedia assignment. Please do not restore article content to Annular Theory (Vailan Theory) again, but instead leave it as a redirect to the article Isaac Newton Vail. The article for deletion discussion here showed a clear community consensus that Vail's theories are not stand-alone notable. Instead, it was determined that Vail is notable, in that he has significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.
If you are concerned about grading for the assignment, you can always give your instructor the link to the old version of the redirect. If you have further questions about Wikipedia's notability guidelines or other policies, you can reply to me below or at elysia@wikiedu.org. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)