Wcnesmith
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Your TeaHouse questions edit
Hello, I shall be answering your questions here, and so have copied the conversation here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Philosopher Seeking Sponser edit
Hello everyone, and happy New Year!
I am a philosopher and have spent my life invested into the most difficult subjects of our human condition. This year was spent practically explaining the theory behind our social problems historical development, and how we could flip everything by creating quality free education, distributed on the Internet.
I do not separate my "personal" and "professional" life. I am alone in this life and spend it travelling the world, studying society both theoretically and practically while standing outside of it. I then create films that attempt to receptively reinterpret wisdom into the actions of our society's individuals. I then distribute these films for free utilising most media distribution formats including many sources on the Internet.
I would assert that I am more closely connected with my work than anyone else in the world because my heart is all in it. I live the life of an anchorite. And when the relational qualities of the dots of our constellations become clear to me, I am thrown into inspiration and then very quickly create very moving productions that will stand the test of time.
My work is all about me. But I have conditioned my psychology over my life to be all about our human condition. Thus from the reflections of me, if the work is examined in its entirety, we come to learn that my work is all about each and every one of us. I have spent my life attempting to remove bias from my thought process. And I closely examine each and every detail within my existence and contemplate different methods to understand and interpret this "reality" in front of me.
I am seeking an editor that has experience in philosophy to work with me to be able to create the type of articles that Wikipedia desires. I have a great amount of work but have really only started creating professional audiovisual productions recently, so my old work would not need articles on them, but may be linked as references. I will not have a problem finding additional references for the articles because that is all included in my work anyway: I am a philosophy teacher.
Me and all of my productions that I would add to this site are EXTREMELY noteworthy and will one day be in physical encyclopaedias. I have given my life entirely to all of my fellow human brothers and sisters and one day they will realise what I have done.
I do want to mention that my work is extremely controversial according to our modern society. But when we shine light over the ghosts we always find that they were only sheets draped over a chair. Dionysus is my method and Love is my game.
Thanks!
Wendell Charles NeSmith www.imdb.com/name/nm5192719/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz-0aaji0nU
Wcnesmith (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Wcnesmith, there is actually a Wikipedia Philosophy Project that exists, so why not join it and find out if there are any tasks you can help with. Bear in mind Wikipedia isn't really the place to promote your own work. That would represent a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged. However, if your work is widely known and has been discussed in reliable secondary sources, maybe you can find someone at the WikiProject who can give you specific advice. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- They deleted my question and ignored me. Wikipedia is losing an awesome scholar. Your loss.
Wcnesmith (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I also want to mention that I do all of this for free because I care about the state and people of our society, so COI is hazy. My interest is only to open source education by creating a huge collective bank of information through teaching others how to create professional productions on the topics closest to their hearts. I have never charged for anything that I do and I never received a cent for any of it.
Wcnesmith (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- They responded but are not interested. Like I said, your loss.
Wcnesmith (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hello new user. If you are wanting somebody to work with and to guide you, you may contact me. I would be more than wiling to help you understand Wikipedia Polcies and stuff. But please note that "No Wikipedia user is above anyone else" and that the loss of any one does not harm the project more than the loss of anyone else.
- That being said, if you are ready to work on Wikipedia, you may contact me and I shall try to help and guide you.
- Cheers,
- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello TheOriginalSoni. I can not figure out how to send you a message. I specialise in mythology and there is SO much mythology on this site that has ignored, incorrect, or overlooked countless metaphors and allegories. Me not clarifying these does hurt the project. Any competent person who does not assist with the development of this knowledge base hurts your project. Kantian enlightenment? Don't act like this system does not need the individuals who contribute to it. This project would not exist without quality scholars. Don't devalue potential quality posters unless you do not care about the quality of this project. Wcnesmith (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hello,
- The first thing I would like to make clear to you is that NO USER IS ABOVE EVERYBODY ELSE. So please stop acting like you leaving the project will harm everyone of us. There would be plenty of users who would have been put off by what you have written yet. Please respect the fact that I am still trying to genuinely help you
- The second thing is that I have absolutely no idea who you are or claim to be (Please dont bother giving the links). When we are on Wikipedia, everyone is just an "editor", nothing more - There are no experts. So please let it be clear that I shall be treating every edit of yours as it would have come from any other editor. Who you are here on Wikipedia is solely dependant on how you make your edits here.
- And the third thing, Your sentence here - "Don't devalue potential quality posters unless you do not care about the quality of this project". It does not help. I care about the quality of the project quite a lot, and would love to have another valuable contributor here. But that does not mean I accept blindly the suggestions and edits of any single person.
- With these initial issues being settled, I think we can proceed with the actual editing on Wikipedia.
- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I stand by all of my points that you censored. And I do not care whether people are put off by what I say. Controversy always ends up with further understanding. I will not link to you anything because you do not appear to care about the evolution of our society. And no issues were "settled" except that I am not welcome here. Remember this moment. Because it is the beginning of the new world that I made happen. Individuals make up society. Not any collective entity. Devalue this wisdom as much as you want and you will end up with results like we currently have within your mythology sections on Wikipedia. Fare the well. Wcnesmith (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I did not censor any of your points. I only do not like the tone of how you present yourself. You are absolutely welcome here, as long as you are willing to start off as an ordinary contributer. Surely an expert like you would not take a lot of time to prove himself to be one of Wikipedia's best Philosophy contributors? Or would it?
- I whole heartedly welcome you here, and ask you to stay and contribute and help. Nothing more though.
- Yet again I ask you to be a little open in your mindset and see if you wish to contribute here. All I say, I do it in good faith. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Well someone deleted an entire post of mine. And my tone is a result of my social circumstances. I am a product of society. And I would love to contribute but I tested the waters with a ONE sentence edit on Pygmalion (a subject I have been studying AND experiencing for a VERY long time) and it was removed. I am not welcome here because I think for myself and encourage everyone else to do the same. I have never stated (nor think) that I am more valuable than any other contributors (there is a lot of wonderful information here that has helped me greatly over my life). But I have a lot to add and edit with the mythology sections here and I do not think your collective mindsets will allow me to do that because I like to connect dots for myself. Wcnesmith (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia and its policies are above all users. If you do not follow them while posting, you are bound to be reverted back. I dont see any reason why you would be reverted if you follow the guidelines.
- Everyone here is welcome. As long as they are constructive. If you have something to add, feel free to do so. But do not take it on yourself if you are reverted back. That is the spirit of the project. Make valuable contributions, and nobody will touch them.
- Once again I ask you - Do you want to help Wikipedia or not? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to be blunt, but let's cut to the chase here, to save time for all involved. Wcnesmith, if your intent on Wikipedia is to write about yourself, your ideas, your videos or your writings, your edits will be reverted and you will, sooner or later, be blocked from editing completely. Your work is not notable by Wikipedia's standards (I've done some pretty thorough checking) and is not acceptable here either as a subject or as a source. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia by adding information from reliably published sources regarding mythology, then you are very welcome to do so; however, if you attempt to draw conclusions from these sources that the sources themselves do not explicitly state your additions will be removed. I am sorry to be so direct, but in the long run, it's better that you understand how Wikipedia works in this respect and avoid a long and frustrating waste of your time. Many websites exist which you can use to promote your ideas (your own Open Source University is fairly easy for searchers to find, for example), but Wikipedia isn't one of them. I wish you good luck in your future endeavours. Yunshui 雲水 13:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Welcome edit
Before we begin, its important that we get a brief understanding of the basics of Wikipedia polciies and stuff. You as a contributor are a lot more valuable to us when you understand these policies. Without these strong policies in place, we would have no way to standardize this project. So feel free to go through a few of these, and understand them. You need not read all of them, but reading the first few should give you an idea of what is absolutely important. WP:Tutorial would be one of the best in understanding everything in a concise manner
There you go! Browse through them, and ask any questions to me here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The actual editing edit
Once you have been through the sections above, I suggest only then you come here. With a basic understanding of the project, you are now ready to improve Wikipedia.
Tell me "specifically" which are the articles you would like to first work with. Also, tell me what is the problem with each one of them, in your opinion. We shall then select any one of them and start working immediately!
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Your approach edit
Dr. Smith, I am looking at your situation, and I can tell you I have seen it before a few times. I think the issue here is your expectations. Things don't work exactly the way you expected, but I wouldn't let that discourage you as much as it seems to have. Does a lot of the content suck? Absolutely. However, that is as much a function of your own ability to improve it as anyone else's around here. It just isn't a good way to judge the process. If your contributions are as great as you seem to think they will be, then they will withstand the scrutiny of the community. We have a pretty functional community here, and the reality is that we absolutely can live without you, so I wouldn't take the "I'm too good to lose" attitude. I have seen all kinds come and go, from lawyers making threats (doesn't work, doesn't come close to working), to PhDs who are supremely confident in their knowledge of their subject matter, and yet still having been proven completely wrong. What matters is that your contributions can be verified. For the record, WP:PHILO is very interested in your contributions, and no discussion of yours has ever been deleted (we never delete discussion, it was moved to the bottom of the page so that the automated archival process works correctly.) If I were you, I would continue to make contributions, and if they are deleted, take the issue to the talk page of the respective article. You will learn a lot about how the content is developed that way. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)