Pschmid1

Welcome!

Hello, Pschmid1, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research at lightsaber

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to lightsaber, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop adding the Beowolf text to lightsaber. It's not appropriate, just because you think there may be a link and can spin together an improbable rationale doesn't mean it is encyclopedic or accurate. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research or an idea you had. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop, but under protest. You asked me to provide citations. I provided citations to demonstrate a parallel, to add a new dimension to a page that focuses just on the tech aspects of making the weapon, or its fight choreography. (Not that those aren't interesting topics! The info there is excellent. By the way, the Gillard quotation that's uncited and flagged comes from Lynne Hale's diaries about "Star Wars", p. 6 [1]--but she doesn't cite a source for the quotation. Director of Communications at LucasFilm, she probably obtained her quotation during numerous interviews with Gillard, but the circumstances are unclear.

Meanwhile, the Wiki page on sources and analogues for "Star Wars" contains all kinds of claims and references without any citations or support at all, and a plea from Wikipedia to improve the page. Would my material on Beowulf be appropriate there in the "Literature" section, with citations and links, or would you also count this as completely "improbable" and uninteresting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pschmid1 (talk • contribs)

The proper approach for unsourced content is to remove it. The fact that unsourced content exists does not justify putting in a personal theory. You need citations that explicitly make the point for you, not citations that you've used to justify the comparison in your mind. You need a source that says "the lightsaber may have been inspired by Beowolf", not "the Beowolf poem mentions a shiny sword". The criteria for inclusion is not "interesting", it is explicit verification by reliable sources. I very, very much doubt you'll find one, but if you do then the point could be included - though doubtless not as an extensive separate section but rather as a minor sentence in a section.

Star wars pages, like most popular culture pages, attract large amounts of cruft. You are welcome to trim it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your points. I appreciate your care with this and certainly agree that reducing cruft is necessary. However, the absolutist claims you make above derive from programming language; they do not work either in theory or in practice for an encyclopedia--which is a humanist enterprise not merely a bunch of coding where you either have working code or errors and junk. If your criteria as stated above were followed precisely just about every sentence on every Wiki page would have to have a citation source. This is clearly not the case for most Wiki pages, nor should it be Wiki's ideal. Wikipedia contains much valuable material that involves some speculation because it has been vetted by a good Wiki editor and judged to be what you disdainfully call "interesting." This is especially true, and rightly so, on the Wiki pages dealing with cultural topics such as the origins and meanings of words, or of works of art and literature.

Look at this sample from the Wiki page on "cruft," for instance. The following passage makes lots of intelligent speculative claims about the origin and meaning of "cruft," and the single footnote, #[1] below, links to an online jargon dictionary page that cites the possible Harvard connection. The other claims made in the passage are not supported but have been allowed to stand because the possibilities they raise have been judged by that page's editor or editors as being plausible and of interest, though eventually some may prove to be incorrect and will have to be removed.

"The origin of the term is uncertain, but it may be derived from Harvard University Cruft Laboratory, which was the Harvard Physics Department's radar lab during World War II. As late as the early 1990s, unused technical equipment could be seen stacked in front of Cruft Hall's windows. According to students, if the place filled with useless machinery is called Cruft Hall, the machinery itself must be cruft. This image of "discarded technical clutter" quickly migrated from hardware to software. Cruft may also be a play on the old typeface form of the letter "s", rendering "crust" as "cruſt".[1] Another possible origin is that the word evokes the words crust, fluff and scruffy. The latter word is the source of similar words in Jamaican English such as cruff, meaning scurfy, coarse or uncouth."

Don't worry; I won't continually bug you about this. But I think our conversation raises interesting and important issues about Wikipedia's theory and practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.24.35 (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The lightsaber page is a mainspace page. The WP:CRUFT page, which is what I linked to above, is a wiki-specific essay. The two have almost nothing in common. You appear to be talking about the mainspace cruft page, which I am not. Feel free to remove any unsourced or unverified information from the cruft page per WP:PROVEIT but do not remove anything from the WP:CRUFT page until you know what the difference between mainspace and an essay are. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

um, the Wikipedia page from which I quoted above re "cruft" to make my point is a mainspace page, an "article." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruft

Yeah, I know. If you object to any of the unsourced content on the page, or any speculation not firmly rooted in a source that makes the point explicitly, then per WP:PROVEIT, you can remove it. In fact, any time you see any unsourced speculation you are free, encouraged, and really should remove it for the same reason I removed your Beowolf speculation - WP:OR. If you want to be a long-term editor, you need to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines. WP:SIMPLE would be a good place to start. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Though we didn't get off to the best start and you may not be interested, I did notice your adoption notice on your user page. I have adopted several users before, it's usually not a big deal (I generally find the {{helpme}} template works just as well, or simply popping into an admin that is online and asking a question). I do know my way around wikipedia and generally react to most questions with considerably less asperity.

Alternatively, you may try looking through the contribution history of people on this page and ask if they're interested. I've also written an essay for new editors you might find useful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in reading your essay and will look it up. I've used Wikip help sometimes, for (as you can tell) I'm still learning. Thanks! 108.16.24.35 (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Peter Schmidt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.24.35 (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A good start would be signing in to your account every time, and signing your posts. Both make it much easier for any other editor to track contributions and conversations. A third suggestion would be adopting the conversation threading conventions of wikipedia. Though none are necessary, all three are courtesies well-appreciated by everyone else in the community (and signing your posts means you stop getting those annoying messages from SineBot). I hate SineBot no matter how clever its name. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Have been busy with other projects in the fall and so haven't visited Wikipedia much, but I will try to spend some time this winter learning more Wikipedia basics. Have read your helpful essay. Will choose someone to adopt me soon from the adoption page. Pschmid1 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)pschmid1

Adoption request

Hi Pschmid1, I notice you've had a request for adoption up for a little while. As you are not currently active, I've removed the current request. If you would still like to be adopted, can I suggest that you contact one of the editors on the list of adopters? As Wikipedia is a volunteer project and many adopters are busy, a more pro-active approach would mean that you are more likely to be noticed. If you've got any questions, feel free to leave me a message. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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) 19:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)