User talk:Lota-reya

Humor
Thank you for your interest in expanding wikipedia (humour, theories of humor). However please know that there are rules about content to be added. First of all it must come from reliable sources. Information on every topic must ultimately come from people who are recognized experts in the corresponding area. Therefore we cannot publicize theories of humor coming from an engineer in air pollution. Of course nothing bad that he is an engineer. It is only he is unknown to experts in psychology, physiology, history, or literature. Of course, you are welcome to prove that he is widely known in these areas. I removed most of the references to Igor Krichtafovitch because it is an undue weight for an opinion od a non-expert, leaving it in the List of publications in humor research. Laudak (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read aabout other basic wikipedia rules in the wikipedia's welcome page. Laudak (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Laudak,
 * there is no general acceptance of any humor theory and any scientific theory may be considered as a final opinion. Therefore "Humor Theory" by Dr. Igor Krichtafovitch is as good as any unless you prove it is incorrect.


 * Regarding  "prove that he is widely known in these areas" there is a wonderful tool called GOOGLE.
 * Type "humor theory" or "formula of laughter" and you will see the results yourself.


 * You got a proof now that Igor K. is an expert in high voltage, haven't you.
 * Want more proof?
 * Look at the proceedings International Humor Conference (Copenhagen, 2006), then look at the list of members of the International Society of Humor Studies you will find Igor K. there.
 * His book is not a best seller but sells better than any other book on any humor theory at Amazon.


 * To your knowledge there is no such science as HUMOR. Cited by you "psychology, physiology, history, or literature" all are relevant but they are not HUMOR itself.


 * So far your actions look like an attempt to limit Wiki readers knowledge to your own preference.


 * With all due respect I will undo your editing in order to give readers more freedom and information with full respect to the Wikipedia goal, rules and spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lota-reya (talk • contribs) 17:12, July 30, 2008


 * You missed my main point: the person in question must be recognized by experts in the domain. The fact that he publishes means nothing, if his publishings are not discussed in the world. Wikipedia cannot be place of promotion of his ideas. And this has nothing to do with "my preference". It is related to core wikipedia policies. Wikipedia has no means to establish whether the writings of this person are "knowlenge" or "baseless speculations". We can only rely on opinions of recognized experts, which you didn't provide.  Laudak (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Laudak, lets stop for a second and look on our discussion from the beginning. Did you notice that you keep changing subjects?

First, you questioned Igor K. credentials in the high voltage field. You got proof. Then you stated that author is just an engineer in air pollution. You got answers. Now you request a recognition "by recognized by experts in the domain". There is.

This Humor Theory was delivered and discussed at the International Humor Conference in 2006 (Copenhagen). There was no objection to the subject. This Humor Theory was widely discussed around the Globe (look at the Google again) and brought no objections and lot of confirmations.

What else you need? What new subject would you bring?

There is no such place or a round seal for a recognition, especially in such elusive "field' as humor. This is live area of the research. There is no university that you may earn Master degree or PhD in Humor. Linguists, psychologists, physiologists, historians - all write on the subject in question from their point of view. One of the most known authors - Dr. Raskin - told once that he did not develop the Humor Theory as such - just a linguistic aspect of it. Would you question his credentials?

But Dr. Krichtafovitch, who has been studied this subject for more than 40 years, has developed the first Humor Theory that is verifiable by the Mother of all Science - by the Mathematics. All other Theories to date are just speculations and statistics.

I would kindly direct you to the source where you may read it and will be happy to hear anything matter-of-fact.

http://www.lebed.com/HumorTheory/HumorTheoryfinal1.htm My best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lota-reya (talk • contribs) 21:40, July 30, 2008
 * Dr Raskin is well-recognized and widely cited in humor research. Please wait until Krichtafovitch will attain a comparable level of recognition, when ghis theory will be widely discussed by other researchers in this area. Laudak (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Sorry, Lota-reya, but but Laudak is right. The inclusion of all that text is adding way too much undue weight to Krichtafovitch's theory. Furthermore, the text you added is largely copy and pasted from the book itself, which is a copyright violation - and not allowed on Wikipedia. Finally, Krichtafovitch is seemingly non-notable. His book publisher, Outskirts Press, is a self-publishing source, and per WP:SPS, self-published sources are not allowed on Wiki. Until his theories have been approved or read and commented on by some secondary or third-party source, they're not suitable for inclusion here. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong now, dear Annyong? Lota-reya.
 * It's still linkspam! You're just using the page as a soapbox for speading the word about his humor theory. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is one way of seeing that. There is another way. I still think that it is perfectly right to cite a reference to the site devoted to the HUMOR THEORY with corresponding ARTICLE.

It does not fall into any category of SOAPBOX, wouldn't you agree?

Think this way: does it help or hurt those readers who are interested in the subject?

Nobody is going to profit of it.

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning
As noted on my talk page, I don't respond to emails unless there's a compelling reason why the communication could not be carried out via a talk page. Secondly, be aware that legal threats are a blockable offense on Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 10:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

August 2009
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)