User talk:Showerscience

I think it makes sense for "Shower Science" to have its own page
The entries made by user "Showerscience" are noteworthy and informative. I can forsee the topic of Shower Science expanding into various aspects of showering that go far beyond the topic header on this page which is. For this reason I suggest that "Shower Science" should have a page devoted to this topic.

I hope that you agree. If not I hope that we can work together to find consensus.

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Recycle9876 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Socks, etc.
-- RHaworth 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep article drafts off this page - it is for communication. As far as I know, I have deleted none of your edits. You will find several of them stacked up here.
 * Please use one user id only - I assume you are also user:Hybrid Shower. Using more than one ID always suggests that you have evil intentions. You may have got some weird misconception that user names match article names. This is not the case: user:John_Doe can create and edit any article.
 * Do not stray outside your user name area: User:shower science is a potentially different user name and is not for you to use. Similarly user:Hybrid shower is potentially different.
 * You are of course welcome to comment at Articles for deletion/Shower science.

A rather waffly article about an alleged new scientific discipline. There may be scope for an article about the hybrid shower providing that the article actually explains how the thing works. But I have a strong suspicion that this is merely spam for the linked-to company. -- RHaworth 11:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Answers to your questions/issues
Hello, Mike, and welcome to Wikipedia. As you can see, I have placed a welcome message at the top of this page that contains some useful links to get you started. Regarding the message on my talk page, there are a few issues/points that need to be sorted out.

I see that another editor has already brought to your attention the issue of multiple accounts - this is really bad form unless certain genuine reasons apply, which typically means having a bot account or an alternative account for a specific use that is clearly and honestly described as such. Examining the history (also known as the diffs) of these pages shows comments regarding your move of this content, seemingly in an attempt to avoid deletion, which is not good form at all, to say the least. See the user page link in the welcome message - it will tell you what you can and cannot do with your user pages.

Have a look at the icon links on the top of my user page and you'll see a Drafts page and a Sandbox - I use these, in addition to various Notepad files stored locally (ie, on my PCs) for the creation of articles. I don't upload a new article until I feel that it is almost complete, with a good structure, full sources, footnotes, etc. An article that is well sourced, is written with a NPOV, contains no original research, and proves its notability will not be challenged. See German Formula Three Championship for a good example - that has not changed much since I uploaded it, and as a result, there was never any reason to tag it. Of course, part of Wikipedia's evolutionary nature is the way in which articles are developed - this means that you don't have to write a near-complete article if you don't want to, or are unable to. Far from it. Other editors can work to improve it if it is only a stub, but it still has to assert its notability and have sources. Unsourced statements are a serious issue; I saw a quote recently that was attributed to Jimbo Wales; the gist of it was that no information is better than wrong information.

Your article-in-the-making about Shower Science needs to be removed from your user page - that is notwithstanding any deletion nominations that may be in place, which must be handled with care and by the book - and kept in either of the forms that I described above. One of the advantages of having a sub-page for article development is that other editors can help you if you ask them to. Don't load it into the article space yet - it will almost certainly be nominated for CSD or ProD. But, remember that a deletion does not prohibit the re-creation of that article as long as the minimum standards are met by the new version.

Also have a look at Talk page for guidelines regarding talk page usage. When adding a new section to a talk page, use the + tab at the top, then enter your title and message. Always remember to sign it with tildes - four tildes produces your user name and time/date. You won't see an edit summary box when using this method, but that's fine because your title becomes the edit summary.

You didn't mention whether you would be interested in my offer of adoption - although, I can still be available for occasional assistance either way - but if you are, let me know. I think you've got the potential to be a valued contributor to Wikipedia. - Adrian   M. H.  16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your last post on my talk page is a bit of a stream-of-thought and thus difficult to follow accurately, so I apologise in advance if I misconstrue any of it: Firstly, I never suggested (or thought) that you would want to control your article, even though that is quite a common feeling for many editors (me included) when we create something from scratch. I never assumed that you would want to write a complete article either, and it is perfectly fine that you don't, because, as I said earlier, no-one expects you to. It's personal choice. It's OK to be "best suited to materialising subject matter" as you say, just as long as that subject matter does enough to avoid deletion; otherwise, you might be disappointed and/or discouraged by the outcome. Wikipedia is a natural home to articles that one editor has merely started, in a form to which others can contribute further down the line. But even the shortest stub needs to meet those fundamental tenets of Wikipedia's standards for articles; namely, establishing notability, providing context, and citing sources. I'm not sure what you meant, if anything, by your comment about not being stupid; no-one ever suggested that you were in any way stupid. Nor am I sure what you mean by "adversarial process"; if you are referring to the application of policy by other editors, that is not adversarial, but simply how things must be done, from a practical standpoint. We are all guided by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in our dealings with other editors, so no-one should ever be excessively uncivil towards you. The application of policy can feel a bit personal, but it is never meant that way.


 * With regard to editing your article-in-progress, I would strongly recommend placing it in a sub-page, such as User:Showerscience/Drafts (click the link to create that page). That way, I and/or other editors could help you to develop it into a form with which you are happy. Like I say, it doesn't need to be "complete" as such.


 * I assumed from your request for adoption that you saw Wikipedia as a long-term thing; that you wanted to stay and continue to contribute in whatever way appeals to you. But if you don't see it as a long-term interest, you probably wouldn't benefit from adoption in an official sense. Feel free to think it over, but it might be that you just want a bit of help and advice at this stage. Adrian   M. H.  18:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid showering systems.
hope to form a stub to expand on here.Showerscience (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)