User talk:Ac driver
Welcome Ac driver!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.March 2014
[edit]
I noticed that you made a change to several articles (Induction motor, Power electronics, Power inverter, Adjustable-speed drive ) but you didn't provide any reliable sources. Your additions have been removed for now, but if you'd like to include citations and re-add them, please feel free to do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit] Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Induction motor, etc
[edit]Hi,
yes, I did make several contributions. I am just discussing with Ann, on how to add the relevant documentation, imagery, etc, to back up the information provided.
Part of the problem is that the gentleman in question, displayed very little interest in increasing his profile. There is full documentation and I have access to it if I ask for it, but I need to know what you would need.
And lastly, you need to understand that much of this was happening before internet was fully prevalent and when it was, much of this was not covered by media or was not publicized. Again, there is a lot of physical documentation. Even recepts, etc.
Do I email you photos, or how does this work? Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia.
AC driver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac driver (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- You need click on the links below, and follow the instructions.
Some pages of helpful information to get you started: Some common sense Do's and Don'ts: 
Do be bold
Do assume good faith
Do be civil
Do keep cool!
Do maintain a neutral point of view
Don't spam
Don't infringe copyright
Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest
Don't vandalize
Don't get blocked
- Everything you need to know is in the links above. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
since this is all based on documentation, much of the work was done under NDAs, and it was a long time ago, citing sources is difficult. It is easier to work with documentation. How do I share some of it with you? The links above mentioned nothing about this as far as I could see?
Thanks Ac driver (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Here are the specific links:
- Key quotes:
- "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
- "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
- You can use any kind of documentation as a source, but you cannot use any documentation that has not been published. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks. This makes Wiki highly impractical in terms of revealing info that was not published, but holds true and is documented. He keeps original documentation, from imagery, documents, receipts, etc. Even trade fair and exhibition materials, etc. But he has never published it and he has no interest in publishing it. It bugs the rest of us who know about it.
So there is no way to upload, say imagery? Only published articles? I can't even begin to think how limited the body of knowledge on Wiki mus be. I read Wiki all the time, but assumed the info on it is derived from more than published articles. Knowing many reporters and contemporary researchers, and how tainted the system is, I can't help but feel that even the limited info that does get put on Wiki, can be fabricated via articles and cross referencing by groups of people,.. Somehow I can't see how that is a protective element, given what are known daily shenanigans in the circles. I would think documentation, which then anyone can dispute or disprove, would be the most secure source of all.
It wasn't two weeks ago I was listening to how badly the cross referencing and publishing reality is tainted by abuse. Finding this is the primary way of Wiki screening info does weaken my trust in Wiki published info considerably. I don't know if it is worth proceeding, given that limitation. To get it done, one would basically need to get someone to publish it, which, even if based on facts, is just way too reminescent of finding a hired gun to sling misrepresentations into an article, as is being done all the time. Not very appealing..
- The above statement is full of misconceptions. You are criticizing Wikipedia without even bothering to find out what Wikipedia is. One thing is clear, however; Wikipedia is not what you want it to be, which is something other than an encyclopedia.
- Free clue: ALL encyclopedias are the same. NO encyclopedia will include information that is not backed up by a reliable source. Not Wikipedia. Not Britannica. Not Encarta. You might try Reddit. Unlike Wikipedia, Reddit is not an encyclopedia and lets you post anything you want to post, with he usual exceptions all websites have (no libel or slander, no child pornography, etc.)
- I suggest that you go elsewhere to find what you are looking for. You won't find it here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Documentation isn't a source? And I did not say Wiki is bad. I did say that it is disapointing to find that the model, which has been so abused (and this is well documented also), is the only model. How can any really unknown data, backed up by actual documentation, be added then? The polite thing to say is that Wiki has those limitations. That it cannot base on documentation. Only articles. So anything that wasn't publicized, is left out, regardless of whether it is true or not.
Encyclopedias have those "limitations". Being disappointed about one of the basic aspects of being an encyclopedia makes about as much sense as being disappointed that a dictionary does not contain any short stories or movie reviews.
Please stop asking questions that have been answered already. I gave you links to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, yet you are asking questions that those pages answer.
This is clearly a waste of time, so I am going to stop reading this page. Feel free to have the last word, but I will not read it. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miro Zoric, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miro Zoric
[edit]
Hello Ac driver. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Miro Zoric".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miro Zoric}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)