Wikipedia talk:Explanationism

wikipedia : explanationism wikipedia : explain wikipedia : eXPLAIN  If
that were true, then you would be more about disability-access-barrier-modification, than about vengeful deletion, or so inclined to despise anyone who would ask f/ anything that you are not familiar with.

I had come to this page in order to look for a template to request a wikipedian[s] to more fully  explain  their  cryptic   cyclop%c3%a6diaencyclop%c3%a6dia definition.


 * former plain

&#91;&#91; hopiakutaPlease do sign your communiqué.%7e%7eThank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 01:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably best to ask on the talk page of the article. –xenotalk 12:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What_The_Fuck_Oh_My_God!_Too_Many_Damn_Three_Letter_Acronyms._ARRRGGGHHH!
The search does continue.

&#91;&#91; hopiakutaPlease do sign your communiqué.%7e%7eThank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 20:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion  is very important.

The reason that I had gone here is to search f/ a template.

I do, hereby, request a "please do explain further" template, so as to ensure that that message can be easily sent.

For now, I do suppose that I would employ template : clarify; but, I would prefer the above variation, &  template : explain  does not have much.


 * * * * Further, wikipedia : what_The_Fuck_Oh_My_God!_Too_Many_Damn_Three_Letter_Acronyms._ARRRGGGHHH!, is not a mere lark; if someone were searching f/ that ridiculous article, then such links might make the search much faster.


 * * * * Furthermore, they do call me "disruptive vandal", as well as much worse,.....

They do, as well, call me "friend", which can be, ironically, worse than most any other insult.

None of you know my face, personally; I do not know your face, nor your telephone-number: I am not your friend, thus far.

If any of you would ever want to be my friend, & f/ me to be your friend, then that is acceptable; however, it is not true, hitherto.

Whereas, the overwhelming verdict is that I am a "disruptive vandal", I shall, now, begin to earn that stripe; three years of trying it politely has not achieved any access, thus far.

If you do really, truly, need a "disruptive vandal", which is what I am inadvertently, then what do you think that I might create by intent?


 * * * * * * * * That is, unless that hearing would have an extremely specific schedule.

&#91;&#91; hopiakutaPlease do sign your communiqué.%7e%7eThank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 22:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You could use the template expand or expand-section for stuff that needs further explaining. –xenotalk 22:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis
I like this essay. On the other hand this reminded me that we cannot make synthesis that is not supported by reliable sources in articles, so it may perhaps be a good idea to also mention the situations where this applies (i.e. in communications between users about content, or on user talk pages about issues, this seems like a most appropriate skill). Vulgarization/popularization in articles is also very nice, but should still support the conclusions of sources in this case. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)