Talk:Weather wars
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] CSD G1 ??
I know what it is. But why was the page deleted after the second edit of the page and without warning. The only way I found it as CSD G1 was because the recreate-after-Admin-delete page said so? And do I need to go back and check my other edits tonight? And why was it CSD without warning immediately after creation?
- I don't know why it was tagged or deleted; it is obviously not a speedy G1. At the very least, it should be nominated for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if someone is implying that this is a non-notable phenomenon or a hoax. —Cleared as filed. 07:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Now Seriously....
The tags are getting ridiculous!! I'm putting stuff in and I'm fighting some one that keeps editing before my stuff gets saved.
GIVE IT A REST ALREADY!! Just look at it tomorrow or get off the CAFFEINE! Hard Raspy Sci 08:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] One other thing...
Ok this wasn't a case of all admins' faults on some weird caffeine trip or whatever. I was also having problems saving this page...occassionally when I save I get a blank page and then nothing happens. So I was forced to do multiple small edits....I dunno!! Hard Raspy Sci 09:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- This article still sounds like original research. The references are interesting, but none of them really put together the theory you're talking about; they are more like references for your own theory. The tone of the article needs to change and some of the assertions need to be backed up. And anyone can tag an article with "cleanup" tags, not just admins. —Cleared as filed. 13:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- 1st, yes anyone can put tags on. Anyone can take tags off. But usually, when people put tags on they should elaborate on where the problem(s) is/are. Just blatantly placing tags gets us nowhere. 1st the original author does not know where the problem is and more problems may arise where the "tagger" is having problems because of lack of expertise/experience in the issue, as such the problem can't be addressed. Especially in this case, there are more references to this subject, than the article is long! I can't help you if you don't know what you are talking about.
-
- So why waste time on a this sounds like original research tag? Experts are called upon to put their time in for the cause of free encyclopedic content. Once I have placed these words on this page, all my rights are waved and it becomes free content because I chose it to be that way. Original research gives it an implication of ownership. Lastly, without putting up your explanation you have made it a Free-content v. Original research issue. Or put the right tag on, this article was beat to crap from the beginning, and I still don't know why. - Hard Raspy Sci 16:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- 2nd, the idea (this topic) is already accepted on Wikipedia. It is not new to Wikipedia, it is expressed on another page in minor detail and a link request was made by someone else. So I clicked the link and made the article, and gave supporting references (with extras that were OK to delete) which the current references do support and document the phenomenon that this article addresses. Besides, it is so widely known about, there is no way original research or unverifiable could possibly be used (without explanation). - Hard Raspy Sci 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I think you misunderstand what I'm talking about by "original research." See Wikipedia:No original research. You can't author your own theories on things just because you are a self-proclaimed expert. If you are an expert in this field, you should have no problem citing references that actually describe all of the facets of the theory you're putting up here. It doesn't matter that you're donating your writings under the GFDL — we all are. This isn't a place to publish your own theory — we are merely encyclopedists neutrally writing about other people's theories. If you can't cite sources that explain those theories in detail, then they don't belong on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that's the case with this article — it looks verifable enough, but I'm placing the tag up there because it actually does need to be verified and legitimate sources need to be cited. —Cleared as filed. 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Ok good, that's a much better way to state your, or anybody's case. I retract my initial fury about this article, getting slammed without any reason. And no, I do not misunderstand original research. I am not talking about a previously unknown topic. In other words, I did not discover this! I think too many people are misunderstanding what orignal research really means. I really think people are confusing original text with original research. But claiming something does not belong on wikipedia due to initial lack of sources only brings us into a POV dispute. Because, you as the disputer should disprove the article. But that doesn't get done, a tag gets thrown onto an article and the disputer walks away. Keep in mind this article was trashed by a sysop minutes after its creation, without explanation. - Hard Raspy Sci 15:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Cleanup Required
As a sociological phenomenon concerning the media, I believe we need 3rd-party references besides the media to keep this from being purely original research. Also, I'm going to take a quick adjective-removal pass through to make it less POV, but this article will need much more attention to be useful. Pjrich 23:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleaned
As original author I believe this article was one of those examples of an article needing help but not getting it from the community of editors by immediately getting trashed by a sysop. Excessive tagging of articles in this manner is an example of sensationalism. - Hard Raspy Sci 21:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
