User talk:Paul Markel

Reversions
I'm sorry that your initial Wikipedia experience was not constructive. Your initial edits unknowingly violated several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Your main edit described a new calendar that you invented. This is original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. It would be permitted once it has been published in a respected journal, thus creating a reference that you can cite. A blog is not a reliable source. Additionally, you promoted your own idea which is considered a conflict of interest. It is suggested that your user page should contain a short autobiography (about two screens). Your curriculum vitae is much too long—it also not permitted on Wikipedia according to WP:UP. Your user page should mainly discuss your contributions to the Wikipedia project. Finally, you added essentially the same information promoting yourself and your idea to several Wikipedia articles. Many editors consider this to be Wikipedia spam.

A competing calendar wiki has been created which has no such restrictions on new calendars. Your idea is welcome there. Many experts will critique your calendar on the calendar mailing list CALNDR-L, where all calendars are discussed, historical, current or proposed. I am an expert on many existing calendars, like the Chinese calendar, but I have virtually no interest in any reform of them. Nevertheless, someone complained that the calendar reform article did not discuss historical reforms, so I added most of that section. Many editors contributed to the present article—the opening line was written by Goldfritha. You are welcome to rewrite it. Just note that the title of the article, calendar reform, must appear near the beginning of the article in bold type, which is Wikipedia style. — Joe Kress 07:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dr. Markel: As a supporter of, and enthusiast for, reforming the Gregorian in some fashion, I've added your interesting calendar proposal to the Calendar Wiki, which while technically not a competitor, is different in the sense that it allows original research. Feel free to develop it further there, adhering to a degree of Wiki style in the writing, of course. Note the subtle changes to the added material there. - Nhprman 04:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Rite
I reverted your edits, as they suffer from a lack of consideration of audience - we are writing for non-Masons, which is why the article is structured the way it is and makes the points it does in the way that it does. For a Masonic audience, I'd see no problem with what you changed, but the lack of foreknowledge we have to presume in a general audience makes your edits too "technical" for that audience. MSJapan (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Paul Markel/sandbox was accepted
 Paul Markel/sandbox, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! T K K  public  (Bark at me \\ Block this account if it's acting funny!) 03:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment: Behavioral Genetics
Behavioural_genetics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Groceryheist (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)