User talk:Blonz/BlonzTalkArchive113006

Welcome!

Hello, Blonz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biosetpoint[edit]

Hi, I am the person who nominated your hypothesis for deletion and I just wanted to explain it a little further for you. Unfortunately, the scientific merit of your theory is not relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not publish any original thought, this includes theories. Please take a look at WP:NOT. This is official WP policy. With regards to my "not notable" comment, it was not intended as a personal slight and your CV is not relevant or required. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you seem to have several false beliefs. Firstly, as I've tried to explain to you, Wikipedia is not the place to publish your theories. Secondly, I did not "summarily delete" anything. The article was deleted by community consensus as it did not conform to policy. In addition, I have no power to exercise, questionably or not, and I certainly do not have the power to delete anything. You claim that the article was deleted "without any discussion whatsoever", yet you posted a comment on the very page the discussion was taking place on. Whether or not I personally understand the science behind it is completely irrelevant to whether or not and article conforms to policy. Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems and no need to apologise. I understand completely. I was wondering, however, if you have considered an article on yourself? I do not suggest you write it yourself as this is frowned on, but glancing at the bio you posted on your user page, it looks like you would meet notability guidelines for an article. Let me know and I would be happy to start one up. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blanking[edit]

Please note removal of messages from a talk page as you did with Sarah Ewart is not acceptable, and is deemed vandalism. (I am assuming this was done in innocence of how it would be perceived.) That applies also to this message, as it is a warning! You can find some helpful information of TALK and USER. Tyrenius 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blonz, I don't seem to have received your email. Try another one if you want to do a test. Look, no harm done and wikipedia has been cunningly constructed by many brilliant minds in concert to create a system where everyone will get something wrong at some point, no matter how experienced. If you get anything "wrong" just say, "help, I'm a new editor and didn't realise" and most people will be only too glad to point you in the right direction. There's quite a steep learning curve.

Generally it is not recommended to remove anything from talk pages, with the exception of such as libel, criminal content or personal abuse (though some users choose to keep the latter). This is the key point:
Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

Archive rather than delete: Avoid deleting comments on talk pages, particularly comments made by others ...

Then there's this bit:

Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing or deleting your own words is up to you. Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context.

I think the "editing and deleting" has to be taken with the other guidelines and doesn't normally apply to something that's in a conversational thread, because that might well distort the context which someone else's conversation with you was taking place in.

A main problem with your deletion was that it was on another user's talk page. Additionally you deleted her words. Even if it had been on your talk page and you only deleted your words, it would have left hers in the wrong context. Basically talk is left, but (if it's on your own talk page) can be archived if you wish at any time in a sub page.

I suggest in this case, if you feel uncomfortable with the dialogue and would rather it were not so prominent you discuss this with Sarah Ewart, with a view to either asking her to archive it, or to agree to delete it. I would certainly not have an issue if that is what you both wish to do. I do not have a problem if you want to delete my comments from this page. (Please note that normally warnings must never be deleted but I am assuming good faith.)

As you've now found out that wiki is a very public place, you might consider whether you are happy editing under your real name. Some editors do, but many of course, like myself, use a pseudonym. You can change your user name if you wish, transfer the edit history or just start from scratch.

If you need any assistance at any time, it is quickest to leave a note on my talk page, but email if you prefer.

Tyrenius 03:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Good to have someone of your expertise and knowledge on board, as long as you don't mind some rude shocks here and there, as it's a level playing field, and that does make some professionals distinctly disguntled. However, the policies of NPOV, NOR and WP:VERIFY do provide a yardstick. Sarah Ewart seems a good person to liaise with, and, looking at your user page, it seems you merit an article in your own right. Tyrenius 09:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I archived the comments three days ago. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]