BackInDisguise
About Wikipedia
First of all . . .
Welcome!
Hello, BackInDisguise, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I suspect I know who you are in Wikipedia terms, but I don't believe anyone has actually welcomed you. You seem to not completely understand what goes on here: I hope some of the links above will help. (I'm sure there are equivalent ones on Finnish Wikipedia; feel free to read there instead. I just don't happen to be able to read Finnish.)
Nobody wants to insult Dr. Luukanen-Kilde. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its whole purpose is to provide neutral, balanced information. So yes, her medical career is relevant: that's why the article says she studied medicine at the 2 universities and that she began her career in a certain year. That's part of saying who she is. But just as it would be wrong to say she is crazy in the article, it's also wrong to say she's extraordinary and marvellous. Both negative and positive statements are value judgements. "Peacock terms" is one phrase used here for wording that just praises someone. It should be removed and just the facts left in - just like negative statements. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory - unlike Marquis' Who's Who, for example. It is inappropriate for an entry on someone to read like a résumé, including everything they have done in their career. The article on Luukanen-Kilde does not need to say a lot about her career - unless she is famous for it. Here's where you can help. The Mediuutiset page gives a little info about her career but few specifics. If you can find, for example, a newspaper article that also mentions some of her positions, preferably with years, then you can put that info in the article using those 2 references. You can't use Who's Who or anything published by her herself. But if newspapers have covered her medical career, or mentioned it when reviewing her books, then that shows she's famous for her medical career, and details about it belong in the article. Wikipedia reflects what other reliable sources say about someone. (It might be hard - Google translate tells me the Mediuutiset article contains the statement, "[her] medical career and [her] life has remained largely hidden from publicity."
If there really is little specific information about her medical career out there in reliable sources, then the article is going to be mostly about what she is famous for, which is her publications and other statements about life after death and Ufology.
You seem to be taking some of the statements in the article as insulting or twisting when they are not. One example: "provincial medical officer" is not a title and does not imply that Finland has provinces. The adjective "provincial" in English has a second meaning of "not in the capital city," usually used of a place some distance from the capital. That suits Lapland well; and she did not start out as chief medical officer, did she? So if there is a solid source saying that she rose to the position of chief medical officer, that could be added. I see in the Mediuutiset page that she was at one point the only medical person in a locality? That would also be legitimate to add. But you would have a stronger case for adding such details if you could find a newspaper article or something to add to that web page, which is basically a casual interview, with few specifics. At any rate, "provincial medical officer" is not belittling and is a good summary. A second example: Her 1982 book was on life after death, which is not the same thing as UFOs, so the article is not twisting the truth when it states that her interest in UFOs dates to her 1986 accident - unless the book also talks about UFOs, or there is some other evidence that she was already interested in and speaking or writing about UFOs prior to the accident. Find a source and use it.
You may be thinking that editors are not accepting Finnish-language sources. That would be a mistaken assumption. But you should expect to be asked to provide a translation of key passages, because it's not a language that many people read (and Google translate is bad at it) - plus there is a sensible policy on en.wikipedia of using English-language sources where possible, and translating important quotations where they have to be in a foreign language.
I hope that advice helps, and I apologize for being so long-winded. But yes, people do listen. And I am sorry but you are not going to persuade me that improving any article on Wikipedia is a waste of time. That's what we do here - make it better. I suggest you find more sources like that one so that the article can be made better. --Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Discussion continued here: [1] BackInDisguise (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
March 2011
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)