Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 August 6

= August 6 =

10:42:55, 6 August 2016 review of submission by Mdpienaar
Mdpienaar (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia.

INTEQUITY

This question is with regard to a neologism and portmanteau word. As part of my research about Accounting for ideas I formed the word intequity from "integrity" and "equity" during 2008 or 2009. At the time the Google search engine did not pick up any Internet pages using the word intequity. Derivative words for example intequinism, intequible, and untequible, for example, were formed by me in the context of my research. Since then the word was 'hijacked' and is used on websites, especially for business names. Previously a page i wrote about intequity was disallowed because of my interest in the word. Your policy of not allowing people to write anything, if they have a self interest in something applies. My knowledge about how the use of the word intequity is changing, puts me in a position to have an overview of how the word is developing. I suggest thus that I be allowed to form a page, whilst my interest is showed on the page. As with other new words, different interests are applicable, therefore Wikipedia could be a could place to have the development of the word traced, if you are interested. If there is a way how you can accommodate a page for "intequity", whilst allowing me to contribute to the page, please let me know.

Kind regards, Marquard Dirk Pienaar.


 * See neologisms. Wikipedia is not the medium to promote the use of a neologism.  If you can show that there has been substantial third-party in-depth coverage of your neologism by reliable sources, you may submit a draft article to Articles for Creation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:48:03, 6 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by QJF
Dear All, We are not experienced with Wikipedia. We are pleased to see many good articles in Wikipedia concerning science. However, some of the reviewers without deep knowledge in science try to create blurred image of some scientific disciplines which can lead to dissemination of not true and misleading information. Especially, if it is connected with new areas of research. We would like to help Wikipedia in this matter writing articles on the topic of the new area of research in which we have a very good scientific expertise. One of the new areas of research is Machine Understanding. There was no any pages, not saying article, on this topic in Wikipedia. This week we have submitted an article concerning this very new and very challenging area of research - Machine Understanding. We are aware that this article needs to be improved (we are not experienced in writing articles in Wikipedia format). Reviewer of our article did not give us any comments, he directed us to you however, probably he created a new page with very misleading link. Machine understanding is linked to Artificial Intelligence. We will be grateful for removing this link because it is very misleading and not true. The article which is now prepared by us will clarify the difference between Artificial Intelligence and Machine Understanding. In order to keep Wikipedia as a trustful source of knowledge it will be desirable that our article on the topic Machine Understanding could appear in Wikipedia as soon as possible. We would be grateful if you could help us to format this article to meet the requirements of Wikipedia. We are looking forward to hearing from you soon. QJF (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear, Please read our policy page on Original Research Mduvekot (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not add comments to redirect pages. Machine understanding is and was a redirect to Artificial intelligence.  When I reviewed the submission, I did leave lengthy comments saying that the draft did not contain any links to existing articles, and that, partly for that reason, it was difficult to assess whether a stand-alone article is needed.  If you think that, based on existing discussion by reliable sources, machine understanding is a separate topic from artificial intelligence, please discuss the need for a separate article on the redirect talk page, Talk: Machine understanding, or on the draft talk page, Talk:Artificial intelligence, or on the draft talk page, Draft talk: Machine understanding.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for response. We would like to help to improve reliability of Wikipedia. We have expertise in machine understanding however we are forced to have discussion with someone who is saying that he has no expertise (person named lucky). We would like to underline that keeping this redirection link from Machine Understanding to Artificial Intelligence is very misleading. There is no point for discussion with someone who is ignorant in the matter of scientific research. We are very busy and we hope that we receive a proper help for editing the article concerning Machine Understanding. It should be more effort on helping scientists to present high standard articles concerning scientific knowledge. It is also our concern that some groups which have access to Wikipedia can discriminate those who are deprived the possibility of presenting scientific achievements. QJF (talk)

21:12:57, 6 August 2016 review of submission by Cavexplorer
pls let me know which links i should replace and in what format thnx

Hans Henderickx (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)