User talk:Wubitog

Please leave comments here or at the viral tagging wiki page, or email me at wubitog@yahoo.com

Viral tagging

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Viral tagging, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. SGGH 17:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wubitog. Actually, I didn't put the tag on the article I just notified you about it. Normally the user who tagged your article would tell you about it, obviously what happened was I saw a tagged article where the creator wasn't told about it, and so I left the creator the message. Unfortunatly there isn't a way of changing that message to say that it wasn't me, because we use a template. In your case, it was User:RHaworth who tagged your article, so you might want to leave a message with him, but I can answer your question as best I can.

The term original research (click me) refers to a ideas put into a wikiarticle that seem to be the creators ideas, rather than facts put forward by a number of experts on the subject outside of wikipedia, essentially, original research is putting forward facts that can't be verified (see Wikipedia:Verification). It's like.... on the article about Apocalypse Now, putting in your own personal ideas about Kurtz's motivations, rather than the ones put forward by professional film critics and so on.

Of course, you may have put in your wikipedia articles facts and theories which are postulated by recognised experts in the field, but if you didn't reference/verify them, it is treated as original research. You have to show where these ideas came from, to prove you didn't make them up. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Help. I hope this helps! SGGH 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That clears things up quite a bit. I suppose what I'm "researching" is sort of new. Most of the sites I see using "Tags" like slashdot, are still either in beta, or not using the full potential of tags(as I see it). I guess few people have thought about viral tagging, which would be something like "record every bit of relevent information". In my database class, they always talked about effeceint data storage, not meaningful data storage. I want to see wikipedia, and wiki's in general adopt a form of tagging. I think that would be the key to solving.. a few.. problems in the world. I've pretty much finished the technical part of my "research". It is the kind that is based on observing the world and drawing conclusions. And I could reference lots of other wikipedia articles that my current thoughts are based on. And those articles should be backed up by "experts" or "facts" if they are included in wikipedia correct? If I clean it up in terms of "proof" then do I still need to be "published" or is it sufficient to have the "original" "document" in cyberspace(aka my website). Sorry for all the quotation, its just semantics really get me confused. Thanks for responding on my user talk/discussion page.

I've copied your message in here just so I can read it while I'm typing. Basically, a wikipedia article is for no-point-of-view information, as opposed to theorizing, which is what essays are for. If you want to propose a policy change, you can do it there or at the village pump. Articles themselves must be factual content based on the work of published experts, and I'm afraid that, no matter your expertise, it's unlikly that postulating your own theories in a wikipedia article will not result in that article being deleted. When you say things like It is the kind that is based on observing the world and drawing conclusions that makes it seem as if it is your theory, which makes it original research, if you see what I mean. I hope this helps! SGGH 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting text like this is done by typing a small number of colons, the number of which defines by how much the text is indented. To quote you: "a good wikipedian rather than an excited newbie like myself" - there doesn't necessarily need to be a difference, if your excited and have the enthusiasm you will be a gook "wikipedian" I think you were just slightly unlucky due to inexperience, but that can easily be fixed by taking a look at Wikipedia:Help which will have all the 'how to write an article'. As for the policy which you suggested, you can go to the village pump's policy section, where you will see a link to where you can propose new ideas like that. Hope this helps you, good luck! SGGH 15:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Your first article. I could adopt you if you like? SGGH 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you think I've been helpful! I've adopted you now, so you can plow me with as many questions as you like, am happy to help! SGGH 12:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

One thing, you don't need to delete previous comments made by you on my talk page when you make a new one, I've added them all back now cause it makes for easier reading for someone following the conversation. You don't need to worry about saving space or anything, I archive my talk page every now and then! Anything you want to say, you can just tack it onto the bottom of your previous comments :) SGGH 12:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan. Keep in mind that your article wasn't deleted because of the topc you choose, merely because of how it was written and how it was unsupported by citations from recognised or published experts. If you like you could write another version on your user page (or I could create a subpage on my userpage for you to write it in), and I can check it over for you? But even if you don't want to write another article, the village pump would be the place to propose your new idea, so go for it! Try to make sure you have everything ready in your head before you propose it, cause you will get alot of questions. Hope thats okay, and feel free to pummel me with question, I will answer what I can and pass on those I can't to someone who knows. SGGH 11:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it going? SGGH 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

certainly sounds like a good idea. Keep at it with the village pump, it can take a while. Maybe you could contact a specific admin who seems to have the right expertise to help you out? Keep in mind that not all wiki users will understand any of the more complicated terms you may use in the proposal. A few article contributions also sound like a good idea! SGGH 15:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very useful link!

Wikipedia:Articles for creation, very helpful! SGGH 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chat

User SGGH has been nominated for adminship. You may particpate in the process, if you wish here:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SGGH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marine 69-71 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

How are things?

Hey, how are things going? SGGH ^speak! 21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken you off my adoption list as you haven't editing since February 9, so I assume you don't need my help anymore. But you can always pop back and ask a question if need be :) SGGH ^speak! 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]