Eindiran
Welcome new user
editHello, User:Eindiran, I see you've opened an account and begun to make edits to the encyclopaedia. You are most welcome and thank you for the constructive edits you have made.
I'm Lumos3, one of the numerous editors here. I voluntarily work as a welcomer to newcomers. I'm posting below a standard welcome box with lots of useful links. I hope you get pleasure from editing and making Wikipedia an even better resource for the community.
I myself have come to the conclusion that editing and watching a topic is a great way to learn about it in depth and stay on top of current developments in the field.
Wikipedia encourages new members to jump in and make corrections and contributions to articles. I found the Be bold guideline particularly encouraging when I was getting started. I also found theWikipedia:Cheatsheet a useful quick reference for editing the source text but our newVisualEditor makes editing much easier (This needs to be turned on in your user preferences).
If you have any questions about the project don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page here :- User_talk:Lumos3.
Happy editing,
Lumos3 (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC) , Wikipedia Welcoming Committee.
Welcome Eindiran!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp. as discussed.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Erdos-Bacon
editSelf-published sources such as your webpage are not considered reliable sources. I could create a webpage claiming that my EBN is 2, but that doesn't make it true. Also you're not in the cast list for A Beautiful Mind. I could claim to be an extra in every Bacon film, but that doesn't make it true. Dozens of people have added their names to the article but had them removed because they are either unverifiable or just plain false. Sundayclose (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you think I'm Brian Kernighan. I'm flattered that you think I'm one of the most famous computer scientists in the world, but unfortunately I'm not. I attempted to add him as he is as (or more) notable than most people in the article, but unfortunately the main sources of this info are his papers with Lin (see the Lin–Kernighan heuristic) and the film itself (see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/qbzgt/brian_kernighan_the_k_in_kr_c_and_awk_appears_as/), which would be in violation of WP:NOR. There are some university lecture notes that point the fact out as well, drawing the path of both numbers (see slide 40, here: https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall08/cos126/lectures/45graph.pdf). And there are the self-published page you objected to. The reason that I thought that that link might be considered a reasonable source is that he is an expert in CS, but you are right that this is in violation of the "[n]ever use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people" clause. Since there doesn't seem to be a better source, I will let it go.
- On a more serious note: I would also ask that in the future, when you're dealing with less veteran editors, that you remember WP:CIVIL (and WP:AGF in particular). Veteran editors growing cynical and treating all contributions like spam is a big reason why many new editors become discouraged. I'm sure its hard to deal with the constant influx of vandalism and spam, so I understand why many veteran editors do it, but as a community we should strive to assume good faith whenever possible. Eindiran (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- The issue is not that I object to the self-published source, it's that those sources violate Wikipedia policies, which were linked for you to read. This is not about what I want; it's about building a quality encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia does not have professional editorial control, it is necessary for editors to point out mistakes made by other editors. As for incivility, I apologize if my constructive intent was misunderstood. But pointing out policy violations is not incivility. If policy violations are not challenged, the editor who makes them is prone to more unintentional violations. "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. Thanks for your comments. Sundayclose (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)