User talk:Ashkap813

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ashkap813, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --TeaDrinker 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading Span and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution

Howdy, I noticed the article you created, Reading Span and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. It looks like it was quite a bit of work. However Wikipedia can not accept original research (per our policy WP:NOR). You may want to consider more mainstream publications, such as journals in your academic discipline. I have gone ahead and nominated it for deletion per our proposed deletion process. I apologize for the effort you have gone through to bring it to Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page, User_talk:TeaDrinker. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Help Desk Query

I'm not sure if your issue has been resolved, but your question at the help desk has received a reply. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete, November 12 2007

The article I wrote is not original research. The reference for the article is on the bottom of the page. It is a notable, published article from a legitimate journal in the field. Posting this summary was an assignment for class; please do not delete it. Once again, this is not my research. This is real, published research in the linguistic field.

Ashkap813 04:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think perhaps I may have given you the wrong impression of what gets into Wikipedia. As a traditional encyclopedia, it does not generally summarize specific papers or academic works, unless the work is notable itself for some reason (although such research may be referenced in an article). I understand better the article itself, and I did go ahead and look up the article. You're correct, it is not a clear-cut case of original research. However I am not convinced that the work is really suited for Wikipedia (per both the intent of original research and notability requirements). With your clarification, however, it does seem like getting more input from other editors would be a good idea. What I can do is move it from a proposed deletion to and article for deletion, which allows (and encourages) discussion and debate about including the article in the encyclopedia. --TeaDrinker 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)