User talk:Saleh Masoumi
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Saleh Masoumi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Phyllotaxy towers, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Salix (talk): 15:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The article Phyllotaxy towers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- The page seems to be about a prospective style of building designed by the uploader. No evidence that any building have been constructed using this technique and no sources about this type of construction.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salix (talk): 15:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
What helps, and what doesn't...[edit]
Hi Saleh, I see you've been adding 'See also' links in various places. I hate to say it, but I'm afraid this isn't really the right thing to do, and it can easily put people's backs up as they think you're WP:SPAMming to publicise your thing.
The right way to protect your article is to write it neutrally; to supply a source for each claim that is made using <ref>...</ref> tags; to cover the topic's different aspects; and then to link it with bluelinks in [[...]] brackets to the articles to which it is clearly related.
Please understand that on Wikipedia, articles survive if they are agreed to be notable, which means they have several reliable, independent sources. At the moment, your article is quite fragile as it reads as something written by one person and sourced to that one person's writings outside Wikipedia - I'm sure you can see that doesn't look too good from an encyclopedia's perspective. I think that's a pity as the broader topic is surely notable and of interest. But adding "see also" links does not contribute to that. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear sir,
What I added are COMPLETELY related to those pages topics, and I think it's better not to sit in place of other peopl and judge me Regards.--2.187.97.249 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry you feel affronted: that is not at all my intention. I am certainly not sitting in judgement on anybody: that is the role that administrators sometimes have to take, not ordinary editors like me. The reason I have taken the time to write to you here is to help you with your article, by explaining some of the strange and unexpected ways that Wikipedia works. If you could find the time to have a quick look through the guidelines at WP:Notability and perhaps also WP:Verifiability I think you might find the behaviour of other Wikipedians easier to understand. With my best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry you feel affronted: that is not at all my intention. I am certainly not sitting in judgement on anybody: that is the role that administrators sometimes have to take, not ordinary editors like me. The reason I have taken the time to write to you here is to help you with your article, by explaining some of the strange and unexpected ways that Wikipedia works. If you could find the time to have a quick look through the guidelines at WP:Notability and perhaps also WP:Verifiability I think you might find the behaviour of other Wikipedians easier to understand. With my best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has some big weak point and we must solve them. I think ALL people MUST be able to change even the basic rules of wikipedia itself, and there is long way to that point. Regards.--2.187.97.249 (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- We are all free to change anything on Wikipedia, including even the most basic policies and procedures. I will say, though, that WP:N and WP:XfD are logical, well thought out, and work extremely well in practice. Where WP could do better is in helping people new to the system, and in having better tools (a WYSIWYG page editor, for instance) to make editing articles quicker and safer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- We are all free to change anything on Wikipedia, including even the most basic policies and procedures. I will say, though, that WP:N and WP:XfD are logical, well thought out, and work extremely well in practice. Where WP could do better is in helping people new to the system, and in having better tools (a WYSIWYG page editor, for instance) to make editing articles quicker and safer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If you change a page for example policies and rules of Wikipedia, administrators attack you immediately and consider it as vandalism, and return page to it's previous state!!! so it is not as easy as you say.--2.187.97.249 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say anyone could modify key policies without discussion. On the contrary, the central planks of Wikipedia are well established (and they work), so they can only be changed after exhaustive discussion ending in consensus. Similarly, AfD is not a matter of voting, whatever it looks like, but reasoned argument leading to consensus. This is so different from things like Facebook or Twitter or blogging that it seems a bit odd at first, but it has a lot of strength once you see where it's coming from. It's intersubjective and it has created an encyclopedia that's free and at least as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica: and constantly improving, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say anyone could modify key policies without discussion. On the contrary, the central planks of Wikipedia are well established (and they work), so they can only be changed after exhaustive discussion ending in consensus. Similarly, AfD is not a matter of voting, whatever it looks like, but reasoned argument leading to consensus. This is so different from things like Facebook or Twitter or blogging that it seems a bit odd at first, but it has a lot of strength once you see where it's coming from. It's intersubjective and it has created an encyclopedia that's free and at least as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica: and constantly improving, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
All I want to say is: in future world, It would be completely meaningless, vacuous and offensive (even illegal)for a media like Wikipedia to have administrators or to have pages with LOCK icon...People will not stand anyone who controls or manage them anymore...because they all have great personality. In the other word,WE MUST SEE ALL PEOPLE AS main ADMINISTRATORS.--2.187.97.249 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Userspace draft,[edit]
As requested the last version of the Phyllotaxy towers article has been created in userspace at User:Saleh Masoumi/Phyllotaxy towers. Please see Wikipedia:User pages for policy regarding there use. --Salix (talk): 19:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)