User talk:E.yi.ning

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, E.yi.ning, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your contributed article, Charles Lawrence(Bioinformatician)
I'm trying to understand why you recreated that article, including the re-addition and mixing up of an entire biography of someone from the 1800s. This article was moved to the correctly titled Charles Lawrence (mathematician), where it belongs. Thanks, First Light (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * actually, what seems to have been done was a little more complicated--but totally inappropriate. Here's what I think was the sequence.
 * First, the article was created by User:E.yi.ning by copying the text of another scientist to get the general format, and then changing the beginning to be for the mathematician. He intended to also change the bottom part to include extensive further information. However, by some accident, he saved the article still containing the excess text from the other scientist. User Tinton moved it to the title: (mathematician) was the appropriate qualifier, we normally do not specify in the qualifier more than we need to in order to distinguish. . User:First Light seeing the content about the other scientist,  removed it.
 * What then happened is that User:E.yi.ning, not realizing his error, assumed the removal of this material  to be the removal of the content he thought he had written initially;  determined to add the entire content, E.yi.ning thought he was evading its removal by starting a  new article at the original title  (biomathematician).  First Light, then seems to have left the above notice not having realised that the text was different.  As reviewing administrator, checking the list of articles to be deleted,  I have just  deleted the (biomathematician)  article as an inappropriate duplicate.
 * I think it's clear that the subject is notable and should have an article. But even so, A Wikipedia article needs  to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the  person, say what they do. Don't keep saying they're a great scientist, describe the work briefly. Don't say it was great work--indicate it by listing the most important articles and the number of citations they have received. This meets the requirement of WP:PROF to show that the subject is an expert in their subject.  A   general rule is to use as few adjectives as possible.


 * Material about notable students is relevant. Just list them and give the link to their Wikipedia article. If they do not yet have one, as is the case with Bryant, make the link anyway, and either you or someone else will write one.


 * And, above all, remember not to copy from a web site, even your own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable.


 * Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective students--that sort of content is considered promotional. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of  press releases or  web sites, which are usually more expansive.


 * As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity.


 * Some of the material can and should be added to the proper article, but be careful. We do not tolerate promotional editing, and people who insist on doing it are blocked from further participation. We especially do not tolerate the addition of material violating copyright, and people who do it repeatedly are always blocked very quickly.


 * I strongly support  articles on academic figures whenever they appear  notable, and have helped hundreds of them get improved to stay in Wikipedia --but I have also deleted thousands of inappropriate articles and blocked dozens of  editors who insist on adding them.    DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)