User talk:Yexuanzhen

Welcome!

 * Are you doing a class/school assignment? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes,this is an assignment that will be graded. Is it possible to delete my editor after June? This assignment is very important to me.Yexuanzhen (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. We are not a place for doing homework, I'm afraid. If your edit is good it can stand; if not, well. What is your relationship to User:Joestead1234? And does your professor have a Wikipedia account? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know him; we were just classmates studying this course together who happened to need to edit the same article. Can you make changes to my editing tomorrow? I need to get in touch with my teacher by mail.Yexuanzhen (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted your reinstatement of your classmate's edit; that one simply was not acceptable (see WP:OR). Yours looks better, but I'll also ping User:JesseRafe to see what they think. Please tell your teacher to consult School and university projects. Sending students out to go and edit Wikipedia articles without any kind of structure and preparation is usually not a very good idea. Thanks for your cooperation. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So user:Joestead1234 edits are valid and my work need to review ?Yexuanzhen (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the other way around. But I don't know about your edit on Pigovian tax (and I have no opinion on it): it is never a good idea to revert a longtime editor (JesseRafe has been here for 15 years) without explaining why you are reverting. That's one of the things you would have been taught in preparation for working on a collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you said "I reverted your reinstatement of your Classmate's Edit;That one simply was not acceptable ".Does this mean that the work of User:Joestead1234 is unacceptable?Then why can I still see his edit in this article, while mine has been deleted?I also don't think it's a good idea for Jesserafe to delete my content without giving me a detailed explanation.If he's been working for 15 years, why hasn't he learned it by now?I also checked the talk page of Jesserafe. I'm afraid most people are not satisfied with his casual revert work.Yexuanzhen (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, this one was yours--sorry, I had them mixed up. Then yours has too much original research. JesseRafe gave an explanation, albeit a short one: "OR", meaning "original research", and a further one for the other edit, "Further revert, OR and tangents and tone". It's not really up to JesseRafe to provide a detailed explanation; rather, it's incumbent on you to, following WP:BRD, discuss the matter. Instead, you reverted without any explanation at all (only one of your edits has an edit summary). How to act if an edit gets undone is one of the things that should be discussed in preparation for editing on Wikipedia; it's a collaborative project. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I need to clarify one issue.Is the content of my edit relevant to the topic of this article, and is it in the right direction?If it is feasible, I will do more research and reference to make my edited content look less original research.Yexuanzhen (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Drmies mentioned not having a general or specific interest in the subject matter, but was drawn to the flurry of reverts by a new user account and advising you on protocol. The place to go for specific content feedback is on article talk pages. I've reverted Pigovian tax again because it was, IMO, grossly unacceptable and gave further details. Your additions on Artificial demand look a lot better and can survive with minor adjustments. This is by no means a final word on the matter, just how I see the intersection between the additions and their merit and the Wikipedia policies. 19:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just added a little bit about how mass media advertising affects demand, and I want to introduce credence good, because a credence good is a good whose nature is not observable by the consumer after purchase, and medical services are an example of credence good.I have also mentioned that doctors create artificial demand by prescribing unnecessary drugs, and I think there is a connection.Do you think what I'm going to edit is going to work?Yexuanzhen (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The place to go for specific content feedback is on article talk pages. As a note, don't expect such feedback to be instant. We're all real people and volunteers to boot. Many editors will revert if an edit seems to violate our guidelines, and because that takes a few seconds. Responses on talk pages are more labor intensive and take more time to develop. Edit summaries on Artifical demand article are more detailed, please pay attention to others comments as they take their time to respond to you. JesseRafe (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what JesseRafe says. I am no expert on this subject matter, but I can tell when something is sourced and taken directly from the sources (essentially, writing for Wikipedia is summarizing secondary sources), or when things are extrapolated and argued. The latter is "original research", and it's quite distinct from what we do in academia. So while this material may well be correct, and may well follow logically from the sources, for instance, if that is not exactly what the sources say (that is, paraphrased directly from what the sources say), it's not for Wikipedia. And note how there is no citation there to explain what the source of that content is. Does that make sense? When I teach for Wikipedia, I spend weeks explaining that, and students usually take weeks to get used to that. So yes, seek the talk page. It's not instantaneous, but that's cause we're all volunteers here and no one watches everything. A thing one can do is go through the history (in this case of Artificial demand) and see who the frequent editors are; I see a significant edit from and one from, and you could invite them for a talk page discussion (I just pinged them)--but I don't know how frequently they check in. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)