User talk:Schmuel

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Schmuel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —Paleo Neonate – 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old account[edit]

It's possible that a previous account of yours existed (and was renamed to Schmuel~enwiki in 2015). Using this new account is fine if the old one remains abandoned. Welcome back, —Paleo Neonate – 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I edit in both the Hebrew Wikipedia and the English one. What is the name of the old account?--Schmuel (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page usage and personal attacks[edit]

Hi - please review WP:TPO, and WP:NPA. You should not remove content from other people's talk pages, even if it's a discussion in which you took part. The discussion will be archived in due course, or removed, according to the other user's wishes. The only talk page you may curate in that manner is your own one. More importantly - do not make personal attacks anywhere on this platform. If you do that again your account may be blocked from editing. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 09:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because I didn't expect to be ridiculed by a third party. I understand you guys are a team and look after one another, but I was the one who was personally attacked first with no provocation.--Schmuel (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for removing content from someone else's talk page. The editing community is indeed a team, and as a site administrator I look out for all of the members of our community. Having reviewed the material that you removed and the proceeding comment, I agree that it wasn't exactly warm and friendly encouragement, but neither was it a direct personal attack of the type that you made. If you want my advice, I'd suggest that you just disengage from the discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it will be the best to disengage. But I wonder what prompted the rude comment in the first place [from someone I don't know and had no interaction with]. I am sure he did not read my article in Hebrew and commented based on that. So what is it then? Probably he saw my comments on a talk page regarding Dr. Shiva, who is apparently considered to be a psuedoscientist and a some sort of fringe unintelligent person by the "mainstream" community. So I guess if I think differently- I am automatically labeled the same- no need to even read my work or hear what I say. This is a sorry state of discourse, of science and of the community.--Schmuel (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the comments were inspired by suggestion that you might write an article about a new scientific principal that you created. It is quite common for people to want to write articles about their own ideas - so common, in fact, that we have a dedicated speedy deletion criterion for such situations (WP:A11). It's best to wait for someone unconnected with the concept to determine that the subject is notable, and to write the article.

I have no view on the discussion about Dr Shiva - I've never heard of him - but on the question of whether or not we should describe him as a pseudoscientist, we should always defer to the best available sources and describe him in the same terms that they do. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on my thesis in the history and philosophy of science and this principal was something I came up with during my academic studies. In any case thanks for the advice, I'll keep it in mind.--Schmuel (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your explaining that. Once your thesis has been accepted and published, and other academics have responded to it and discussed your principle in their own work, it will be notable according to our guidelines and would be a suitable subject for an article. At the moment, it sounds like the very definition of original research, and not a suitable subject for an article. That is not any kind of comment about whether or not it is good research, of course the world needs original research in all sorts of subjects; it's purely a comment on whether or not English Wikipedia should host an article about the subject. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear- I mentioned working on the thesis to show that I have an academic background etc. The Wiki page in Hebrew that I wrote is not about the thesis- it is just a scientific principal that I came up with along the way in my academic journey. I do think it could be interesting to read for people that like science and logic etc. If you are interested- you can take a look [maybe using google translate]- https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%9C . In any case- thanks, and nice talking to you.--Schmuel (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - yes, I understand that. The problem is that it's a principal that you came up with yourself. If only you have written about it, it's not notable - that would be the case whether you were an undergraduate or a tenured full professor. The question isn't whether it's interesting, it's whether it's notable according to our guidelines. WP:GNG calls for secondary sources - your own writings about a principle you have come up with would be primary, and so would not help in establishing notability. If and when other academics pick up the idea and write about it, it will become notable for our purposes. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 18:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ad Hominem Imperitum[edit]

Hello Schmuel,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username JayBeeEll, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Ad Hominem Imperitum for deletion, because it appears to be about something that you or someone you know personally invented, coined, or discovered, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important and/or recognized enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|JayBeeEll}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JBL (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]