User talk:AggregativeGames

AggregativeGames, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi AggregativeGames! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing in Wikpedia

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia.

As I wrote in my edit note, the text you added to the calorie restriction article violates WP:OR. That is a serious thing. Please read that policy. You cannot make ANY evaluative statement beyond what is exactly stated in a primary source. Within WP:OR please especially see WP:PSTS and the bolded do not statements. Feel free to add back with appropriate text that follows this 'policy. Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog - I am not sure I can answer you here, but I'll give it a go before trying elsewhere... Concerning what you say, are you able to be a bit more specific. After my edit, I have no idea what you would consider "evaluative". I know the literature well, including the cited papers, and what I say is completely in agreement with the conclusions of the Nature article (cf. the abstract). Is it that I'm supposed to quote directly rather than rephrasing (slightly)? Don't get me wrong, I want to follow the rules here of course, it is simply that I do not understand which statement(s) you consider to be evaluative.

hi, did you read WP:OR and especially the WP:PSTS? (real question - this is an absolutely fundamental principle of Wikipedia that can be counter-intuitive, especially to scientists. If you do not wrap your head around the spirit and content of this policy, you are going to have endless trouble as an editor) Also, please bring this to talk, as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (that is an "essay" but is a very helpful one) But to answer your question, your characterization of the diet as "much more healthy" is your interpretation -- the authors do not say that. They have a section (beginning with "A notable difference between the two studies is diet composition..." where they describe the differences, and they do seem to argue that the diet they used was "healthier" but they do not actually come out and say that. (If you see a place where they do, please point it out to me!) Wikipedia editors cannot interpret primary sources. Only if you find a secondary source that characterizes the diet as something like "much more healthy", can you write that in Wikipedia, with the secondary source cited.Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I see, ok thanks. I'll think about how to edit it or just cut it. What I will say about the issue is this: The W-M people are on record on this issue, see the piece I cite after my statement: http://www.nature.com/news/calorie-restriction-falters-in-the-long-run-1.11297 (the Weindruch quote). I guess a compromise might be to write "not as healthy" with a reference to Weindruch. It's important to mention I think since it relates to the conclusions on Drosophila (it's the sugar ;-)).

You can say something about the healthiness of the diet, based on the accompanying news piece, citing the news piece for sure. It's really simple to fix, using that secondary source (the news piece). btw, this is not a matter of "compromise" - you must follow wikipedia's sourcing policy. Do not go beyond what the sources actually say.Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help Jytdog! Much appreciated!

I do not think you actually went and read WP:OR which is frustrating. You have now sourced the "unhealthy" bit (which is great, well done), but in the new material you added, you violated the very next thing in the policy - namely you synthesized material to advance an argument. PLEASE read WP:OR and for this problem, pay special attention to the section on synthesis - here Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position In scientific writing (e.g articles and reviews) synthesis and analysis like you are doing is not only normal but is required. Wikipedia is NOT a scientific article. Your opinions and analysis have no place in it -- no place whatsoever. Please get your head around that! Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you have moved on to other things. Just want to say thanks for adding that Nature study to the Calorie Restriction article (which I should have done earlier), and good luck in your future endeavors! Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Aggregative games was accepted

Aggregative games, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your username

Recent comments on Talk:Aggregative games imply that you collaborated with others in creating Aggregative games. Collaboration is great, it's what Wikipedia is all about. However, sharing accounts is a no-no. If you are the only person who has ever edited with this account, then all is well. Just let your collaborators know that if they want to edit, they need to create their own accounts.

If more than one person has edited with this account, then I recommend that you create another account for yourself and that you ask that an administrator block this account so nobody can use it. Then if your collaborators want to continue editing - and I hope they do - they can get their own accounts.

The one-account - one-person rule is necessary to make sure that every edit by a logged-in editor is attributed properly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)