User talk:NewsNeus

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, NewsNeus. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, NewsNeus. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Please respond to concerns raised at Nemetics article in respect of potential conflict of interest and proper sourcing. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nemetics for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nemetics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemetics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Snowded ^TALK 05:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snowded, I have seen the long list of added editions to the original entry I wrote, and I think the text is more obscure now than before... It seems I've received all the possible red flags, now! Sorry for that. I am really learning a lot, and I have added three questions to the teahouse to learn more. I hope next article will be better.

I still insist it is a legitimate text without conflict of interest on my side. I am not a member of the Nemetic institute, I have not invented this analysis and I only have contact with some of the researchers through twitter, although I had already used this method in some of my training courses three years ago).

I also would like to know if there is a tutorial for reverse added editions... How can I reverse part of the text to the original version?

a) Some of the added contributions by third parts do seem to be their personal research: if no resource is mentioned, I would eliminate it (but published material should be accepted, if added by third parties!)

b) Some of the erased references were legitimate, but needed minor changes: by erasing the whole paragraph, meaningful part of the text has desappeared (for example, references to transmedia and transliteracy).

c) Some sources were eliminated unilateraly: I think a thesis from someone in Australia should be as valid as one in US or UK, as information source (even if constrioversy should be mentioned, then).

Honestly, after consulting in Wikipedia as much examples as possible on similar fields, I think the only real reason to delete this article would be notability (and I'm not sure how many experts should be talking about a topic, or how many scholars should be using a particular sequence, to be notable...).

Anyway, thank you for your help and your orientations!
NewsNeus (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]