| Revision as of 14:40, 25 January 2008 editLucyintheskywithdada (talk | contribs)2,222 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:41, 25 January 2008 edit undoWebHamster (talk | contribs)18,133 edits →Difference between Spiritualism and MaterialismNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| : I do not mind it being peer reviewed by individuals within the specialisms but I do feel to be beset by the bullying I received from entirely unqualified individuals is against the spirit of the Misplaced Pages. I have taken the time to flag it up on specialist portals and am continuing to work on it. The comments are qualified by the links to the main articles. --] (]) 10:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | : I do not mind it being peer reviewed by individuals within the specialisms but I do feel to be beset by the bullying I received from entirely unqualified individuals is against the spirit of the Misplaced Pages. I have taken the time to flag it up on specialist portals and am continuing to work on it. The comments are qualified by the links to the main articles. --] (]) 10:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::And the relevance of that WQA to this AfD is what? I'll give you a clue... it has none other than to demonstrate that you were pissed off at me for AfDing your article. --]''' 14:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' A clear case of original research. I have no doubt that it was created in good faith, however, as the editor is very new. Lucyintheskywithdada, nothing personal is intended here, it's just that this kind of article isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. ] might be a useful read. --] (]) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' A clear case of original research. I have no doubt that it was created in good faith, however, as the editor is very new. Lucyintheskywithdada, nothing personal is intended here, it's just that this kind of article isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. ] might be a useful read. --] (]) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:41, 25 January 2008
Philosophical Spiritualism and Materialism
- Philosophical Spiritualism and Materialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A POV article full of original research and lacking in any reliable references. WebHamster 06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I would like to note that WebHamster has prior been flagged up on Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts for his conduct.
- The topic was repeatedly tagged and flagged with an AfD nomination, and others, within only 9 minutes of its creation, this was as I was working on it and by individuals with no specialism in the subject. No commitment to discussion nor cooperation offered and despite my drawing my development of the topic to the individuals' attention.
- Currently the Misplaced Pages appears to have no topics on the philosophical use of the word spiritualism at all. My reasoning for using this page as a starting point is that, a) it is an important contrast to the starting point of my other work, on spiritualistic topics; and, b) in an environment designed to inform and broaden the interests of a fairly general audience, it is often easier to teach by broad contrasts in the first place rather than specifics that might go over heads. Is it my WP:OR, no. Its class 101 level, in the longer term I see topic arising in each of the specific definitions of the word ... but one needs time and and encouraging atmosphere and the Misplaced Pages needs experts not thuggery of the sort I experienced.
- I do not mind it being peer reviewed by individuals within the specialisms but I do feel to be beset by the bullying I received from entirely unqualified individuals is against the spirit of the Misplaced Pages. I have taken the time to flag it up on specialist portals and am continuing to work on it. The comments are qualified by the links to the main articles. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- And the relevance of that WQA to this AfD is what? I'll give you a clue... it has none other than to demonstrate that you were pissed off at me for AfDing your article. --WebHamster 14:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A clear case of original research. I have no doubt that it was created in good faith, however, as the editor is very new. Lucyintheskywithdada, nothing personal is intended here, it's just that this kind of article isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages:Five pillars might be a useful read. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment User:Lucyintheskywithdada has informed me that they are an experianced editor who is using a new log-in after having lost the password to their old account. They have also asked me to expand upon why I think that this is original research. In short, I think that it's OR as the table comparing the two concepts isn't cited. These comparisons need precise citations. From looking at the titles of the references, only the work by Tamm appears to make a comparison rather than describing the two concepts. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article was created not even an hour ago, so I think it's a bit early to tell what it'll be. At least give the poor author a chance to work on it a little. Wow... Equazcion •✗/C • 07:08, 25 Jan 2008 (UTC)