User talk:Vkdh

Welcome
Hello Vkdh. Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm looking forward to seeing what contributions you decide to make. John.Farquhar (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi! I just wanted to stop by and quickly welcome you to Wikipedia. I'm helping out a bit as the online Ambassador for the "Reality Check" course, so if you need any assistance just give me a yell. You can leave a message on my talk page, or send me an email - both should work well, and I'm really happy to receive questions. I'm in Australia, so our time zones will be out of sync a bit, but I'm normally online during the mornings and evenings your time. At any rate, it should be an enjoyable course. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just want to second that. Welcome to Wikipedia, if you need help please just ask.  You look like you have picked a pretty important topic to work on, not my area of experience but I understand her writings are a "must read".  Looking forward to your contributions. Sgerbic (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Stone Tape
Hi! I just wanted to stop by and see how everyone was doing on the latest task. Your addition to Stone Tape is very good - excellent source, and I think it is a valid addition. The first few edits can be tricky, as Wikipedia has a pile of policies and guidelines to work through. My only slight suggestion is that you use full citations. There's a couple of ways of doing this - one of the easiest is the "Cite" option which should show up in the bar above your edit box. If you expand that it will give you a choice of "cite web", "cite news", "cite book" and "cite journal", and they open up a window where you can add the data. Otherwise you can try using the citation templates yourself - in this case I'd use cite paper, which would take the form:



It takes a bit of work doing it by hand, but both the hand-written code and the one that comes from the assistant will automatically format the cite into a formal reference model:



Regards, Bilby (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Intelligent haunting. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ''Fringe sources such as those you added are not considered reliable per our WP:RS reliable sources policy. Also please review our WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE policies for guidance regarding how non-mainstream concepts are presented in articles.Thanks!'' LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are a new editor. Welcome.


 * Acting like a guard dog, LuckyLouie will tend to bully anyone proposing something for that article he personally does not like. While it is true that the reference you used in not mainstream, it remains a factual account of that grading system. As I understand past arbitrations, such references are acceptable for noncontroversial content. The Class A, B and C system is not controversial and inclusion in the article is informative. Tom Butler (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Intelligent haunting
I regret that I had to revert your additions of primary-sourced material from fringe sources again. Fortunately, I've given you two acceptable sources  that report the topic from an academic and independent, third party perspective. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi! Nice work on Mediumship and Stone Tape - excellent sources, good writing, and a solid neutral point of view in each. :) My only suggestion - and this isn't because you've made the mistake, but because it is something to be wary of - is to be cautious of synthesis, where you bring in material not directly related to the subject at hand, but add it because it seems to develop an argument. Generally, if a source doesn't specifically mention the topic of the article we can't use it. (This hasn't been a problem, as the Dopamine article seems perfectly ok, and there was no concerns at all with the additions for Mediumship, but it is worth watching out for). I find it interesting, as it is so different to what is normally expected of academic writing, where bring together different points is a strength - but Wikipedia's role is to be a Tertiary source, rather than a primary or secondary one.

With the latest addition on Intelligent haunting things are a bit trickier, but mostly because the source isn't quite as solid as the others. Life is, of course, but I'm not quite so comfortable with the Floyd book, but that's not clearly a problem - the issue is whether or not the publisher is sufficiently reliable. It might be ok, though - if there are concerns, you should look at raising them on the talk page, as there may well be people who can help you there. You also need to be a tad more careful in how it is worded. With these topics, there is a tendency for the sources to come out strongly on one side or the other, but the article itself needs to remain neutral. So, for example, while the source might assume that events did happen, your description may need to be less firm, noting only that they were described as having happened. - Bilby (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)