User talk:Yesmaammm

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Lonewolf BC 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Salem Witch Trials, etc.
I don't mean to "bite the newcomer", but that "rape-trauma" thesis you restored on the Salem Witch Trials article seems to be "original research". As such, it is not allowed in Wikipedia. If you want to include it, you must find a reliable source that has published the hypothesis. In this case, that likely would have to be an article published in a scholarly journal, by a historian or perhaps by a historically interested psychiatrist or psychologist. Contrary to our edit summary, Wikipedia cannot treat the material in question as "...important to understanding likely causes..." of the "bewitchments" (and the consequent trials), without a reputable source that proposes the cause suggested by that material. The style of that material is also unencyclopedic and otherwise troublesome, whereas it relies upon innuendo, and distorted the pre-existing text. So, firstly, it needs a reliable source if it is to be re-introduced. Secondly, if it is re-introduced on the basis of a such a source, it needs to be discussed in a straight-forward, scholarly manner, not slipped into the present text in the form of little insinuations. If I am not mistaken, "rape trauma", as a psychiatric phenomenon apart from Post-traumatic Stress, is itself a moot notion. That would present another obstacle to re-introducing material relating to "rape trauma" into this or other articles. Speaking of which last, I infer that you are the same editor as "64.142.94.174" and "71.134.181.190", who introduced alike, and likewise troublesome matter into a range of articles. That sort of cross-article point-of-view pushing is not kosher on Wikipedia -- the more so when the opinion being pushed lacks a reliable-source basis. Lonewolf BC 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) - - - - -

I can only assume that you are the same editor who has been repeatedly inserting material of the kind I wrote of above into the article on the Salem witch trials, and other articles, from:
 * 64.142.94.174,
 * 71.134.181.190,
 * 128.32.185.223 and
 * 128.32.185.222

Please stop this now. You must provide a reference for that thesis, or you may not put it into Wikipedia articles. If it is your original thesis (as I infer that it is) then you must get it published elsewhere (and not just anywhere, but by some scholarly publisher of good repute) before you can introduce it here. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Beyond that, what I said before about the need for an encyclopedic writing-style. Again, please cease and desist. You are, of course, most welcome to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, in ways that do no break its fundamental policies. -- Lonewolf BC 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Reply by Yesmaammm 23:54, 30 November 2006, copied to here from my user page -- Lonewolf BC 02:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC))
 * I fail to see how this statement, "The symptoms many of the accusors exibited were very similar to those of female hysteria, an occurence closely related to the post-traumatic stress of rape," is unencyclopedic. Please explain.


 * Hi. A couple tips on wikipedia-etiquette, before I answer that: First, try to remember to sign your messages to other editors, as shown it the "Welcome", above. Second, when leaving messages for other editors, be sure not to do so on their User pages, as against their User talk pages.  Be especially careful not to create a User page (other than your own) by leaving a message there. User pages are the "private space" of each editor ("User"), and some editors, such as me, choose not to have a User page at all. Discussion belongs on a Talk page, either that of a "User" or that of an article. The most basic problem with your statement, above, is the one I've already said twice, and Gwernol has repeated some more times: It is "original research" ("OR"). Beyond that, it is unencyclopedic to insinuate things in the manner that statement does when it is read in the context of the article -- but I'll not argue that point of writing style with you unless you first solve the more basic "OR" problem. If you've gotten this hypothesis from some sound published source, then you need to provide that reference. But to me it looks as though the hypothesis is your own original thought, in which case you most likely need to write a paper on it yourself, and get that paper published in an academic journal. It might make a good graduate thesis. Why not run it by one of your profs? -- Lonewolf BC 02:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Lonewolf BC that your "female hysteria" theory appears to be original research. You need to cite an independent and reliable source that puts forward this theory. Otherwise its just your theory of what went on and cannot be included in a Wikipedia article. I should also point you to the three revert rule which prohibits editors from edit warring. Thanks, Gwernol 00:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedias and Wikipedia in particular, report what has been published elsewhere. If a New York Times article (for example) says that the Salem Witch Trials was an example of female hysteria, we can report that because the Times is considered a reliable source. What we don't do is include the conclusions that one editor has drawn on their own about an event or other subject. This is what we term original research and its strictly forbidden here. Therefore you can't add your statement unless all you are doing is reporting a conclusion about the trials that someone else has drawn and published. I hope this is clear, Gwernol 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed description of your theory. However as far as I can see its still your theory and however well thought out it is, you cannot include it here. If you are reporting someone else's theory please tell us whose theory it is and provide a citation to the publication of that theory. Its that simple. Gwernol 00:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)