Torrubirubi

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Human evolution, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

September 2012

Hello, Torrubirubi. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that I am doing everything wrong again, right? (smile)

Thanks for your help. Look, I am still not sure why my text is considered as not neutral. Of course I am close to the subject, but this apply to any specialist, or not? It seems that editors of Wikipedia had very negative experiences with champions of the aquatic hypotheses in the past, and they have the tendency to quickly delete everything new on this topic. I understand this, but we (R. Bender, Tobias and N.Bender) are NOT proponents of the aquatic hypothesis! We only argue that topics related to water use in hominin evolution are often automaticaly linked to the aquatic hypothesis. For this reason, paleoanthropologists are normally afraid to publish anything on water use in early hominin evolution. I can give you an example: chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons are universally considered as not able to swim. I found that this statement is not based on empirical evidence, and after 3 years of investigation I could supply the first description of swimming and diving behavior in chimps and orangutans (a paper on this topic is submited).So I wrote on this topic in Wiki in several languages, but in the English Wiki the text was just deleted, probably because a swimming chimp is "too close to the aquatic hypothesis" or something like this! This is what I mean with my text. So, what will happen next? I am still waiting that one day somebody from Wiki will ask me to send a PDF of my publications to check the quality of my work. This seems to be very unusual here, right? In any case, I have a PDF of the paper I gave as reference... --Torrubirubi (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a concept of article weight on Wikipedia, which basically means that we cover viewpoints in proportion to how prevalent they are. Aquatic hypotheses are very widely dismissed, as you mention, so we consider them to be a very small minority view (It doesn't sound like you disagree with this). Generally, such topics are only covered on their own specific articles (in this case, Aquatic ape theory). This will change when your theories become more accepted, and we get independently written, secondary sources that discuss your research. In a nutshell, when you convince other paleoanthropologists, then Wikipedia will follow as the mainstream viewpoint shifts, but Wikipedia is not a place to break new scientific ground. - MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)