User talk:Sinveil

Welcome!

Hello, Sinveil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources in edits

I noticed that your edits, or at least all the ones I have checked, are lacking ~~any~~ sufficient references ~~whatsoever despite adding paragraphs of content~~. Please remember that generally on Wikipedia, you must cite your sources for every claim, especially for those that are challenged or likely to be challenged. Basically, you need to prove that the claims you are including in articles are not original research, which is something that Wikipedia is not interested in providing. These sources need to be reliable and, preferably, both secondary and independent, which allows anyone reading the content to verify the claims themselves and read further about the subject.

You appear to be very knowledgeable in the subjects about which you have edited, which is something we definitely need on Wikipedia; however, no matter whether you are an authoritative expert on these subjects (or even a professor!), your additions are likely to be challenged and reverted if you fail to cite your sources. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and its purpose is to provide a summarized repository of knowledge according to reliable sources. With that said, I strongly recommend you go back and revise your edits thus far to include referencing to your claims. If you have none for them, please revert them; if some of the content you have edited is original or unverifiable, please remove that content. If you don't do either, it is likely that someone else will.

I know referencing can be an intimidating and burdensome task, but it is a constitutive part of Wikipedia in particular and good research in general. If you need any help, feel free to ask me here (you can notify me using the {{u}} template) or on my talk page. You can also ask for help at the Teahouse or Help desk. The help page "Help:Referencing for beginners" will be of assistance here; consider also perusing the links at the "Wikipedia referencing" and "Wikipedia editor navigation" templates, as well.

I have not reverted any of your edits yet because I have faith that you will rectify these issues both going forward and with the edits you have already made in order to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is crucial that you heed this advice, though, because editors have been blocked and even banned for not citing sources on the basis of disruption, incompetence, and generally not being here to build an encyclopedia. I do not want that to happen to such a promising editor such as yourself, which is why I am reaching out now to offer some friendly advice and help you better contribute to the project.

I look forward to any response you may have. Thank you for your time. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as an addendum, I want to correct myself (as shown above): you have cited some sources, and that is very much appreciated. I inspected some of your larger edits further and noticed them, such as in this edit and this edit. Thank you very much for doing so! The cause for my immediate concern, however, was because I noticed that some of your paragraphs lacked any references and it was unclear whether they were supported by any of the references you did include. This may just be a text–source integrity matter, though, which is much less steep a learning curve to address.

With that said, I want to apologize for initially stating that you were not citing any sources, though that is what I initially saw. Nonetheless, please understand that my alarm comes from a place of concern, since a less welcoming editor may respond to your edits with a simple reversion and curt remark about it being insufficiently cited, no matter how much great prose you put out. That is a very discouraging experience and an editor such as yourself does not deserve such discouragement. My offer still stands with assisting you in your journey as a Wikipedian, though! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Influences and notable ideas

Greetings. Template:Infobox philosopher: "Entries in influences, influenced, and notable ideas should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." I deleted them as per template documentation. Please read the documentation of an infobox before you use it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you add an idea to the infobox, but not the main text, please provide a source as I have done here [1]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your inputs plus some help in article expansions

Greetings,

Since I stumbled upon related sources I initiated an article draft Draft:Irrational beliefs. It seems you have earlier worked on article Irrationality. I would like to request your inputs plus some help in article expansion. Please do visit the draft, and help expand if feel interested in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Philosophical pessimism and Antinatalism#Asymmetry between good and bad things

Hello there! I see you've been quite active in some things related to the above mentioned pages. I'm pinging you @Sinveil: directly to ask for some help. I've started 3 initiatives for these pages. If you could spare some time in the near future, could you please take a look at the proposal and voice your opinion? Of course, if you have interest, time, and energy to participate that would be amazing!

Here are the projects:

1. Talk:Philosophical_pessimism#A proposal for an overhaul of the article — this initiative is already in progress. The idea is to raise the quality of the page by switching it from a mere historical account to a more encyclopedic format.

2. Talk:Philosophical_pessimism#A proposal to split the History into a dedicated page — related to the one above. The historical account is overly detailed. It would be much better to have a dedicated page for the history of philosophical pessimism and leave only a brief history in the main page.

3. Talk:Antinatalism#A proposal to create a dedicated page for Benatar's axiological asymmetry — here, the idea is to extract the axiological asymmetry argument into a dedicated page. This way, a more detailed presentation could be given. In addition, we could expand on the various responses others philosophers made and counters from Benatar. Other pages could have a brief description and link to the details page.

I hope at least some of this will spark your interest! Fantastiera (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]