User talk:Wega14
Hi Wega14, I have seen some of the issues you encountered on the near death experiences page. Would you like to collaborate? and talk about it via E-mail? is so please contact me via following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Ferrer1965 Ferrer1965 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The article Jeffrey Long has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Sources are very far from demonstrating notability, being either to self (Long's own site nderf.org), or of the type "the man/the book exists" (Amazon, German Random House, etc), or an utterly unreliable-looking site called skeptiko.com.
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. Bishonen | talk 22:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Jeffrey Long for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeffrey Long is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Long until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hello there! In response to your question on april 5: You already have a few reliable news-sources in there (Newsweek, New York Times), but in order to save the article you probably have to step it up a notch and find peer-reviewed academic sources. PubMed offers a suggestion, but (unfortunately) no abstract available. Long is also a contributor to the Handbook of Near-death Experiences published by Praeger, and Greyson and Longs reply was published in a high-profile academic journal (Neurology) in 2006. But...these are primary sources (published by by the author in question). You need to find secondary sources (preferably review articles) that reflect both support and criticism of his position. This is a bit more tricky, but I would suggest that you move the reference section more in the direction of academic, peer-reviewed, articles. PubMed is a good starting point, but you also have Psycnet. Good luck!--Hawol (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Secondary sources (in the form of review articles) on Long's research are not that many. I'll see what I can find.--Hawol (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Secondary (review) sources: The Journal of Near-Death Studies is often a natural starting point for locating review articles on Near-death researchers but I will not consider this publication here, because I find it to be too close to the subject to be considered a secondary source. However, a few promising sources show up, but I haven't read them closely, so I will not make any specific endorsements as to their suitability. The first one is from the journal Humanities,an international, scholarly, open access journal. I interpret this one to be sceptical of Long's position. Then you have the The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, not a mainstream journal, but provides a sceptical review. There are a few others also, but the full text is not available for regular, non-academic, users. However, to balance this out you probably need a few sources that are more neutral, or even supportive, of Longs position. Publishers Weekly and The New York review of Books provide non-academic reviews, but are very short on Long.--Hawol (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Wega14. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Wega14. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Anouk Claes
[edit]Hello, Wega14
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username TheLongTone 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, Anouk Claes, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anouk Claes.
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|TheLongTone}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Anouk Claes for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anouk Claes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anouk Claes (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Meek is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Meek until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 6
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Afterlife, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Fenwick. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
March 2021
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Ghost (1990 film), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)