This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gestrid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
South Australia - Source requested for the Big Cockroach
Gestrid,
I recently added a location and photo of the Big Cockroach, South Australia - which you removed, requesting a source.
I took the photo. I visited the site. There's a sign in the photo stating it's the World's Biggest Cockroach. Can you please advise what should be sourced? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BowlCurtain (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
BowlCurtain, unfortunately, personal experience (what we would call original research) and even Wikimedia (what we would call user-generated content) actually aren't reliable sources, according to Wikipedia's standards. Anyone can claim anything without it actually being true. What Wikipedia would count as a reliable source is, for example, a newspaper (even a local one) saying that. (Even as I'm finishing up typing this, I see that you've added a news website as a source. Good job!) —Gestrid (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I don't think the editing of Wikipedia is particularly obvious to new users such as myself. I published the change and was already editing to get it right when the content was removed. I was about to set up cross-references to the location, and link to the Lower Light page when you removed my contribution. Perhaps my brand new account with lack of citations triggered additional flags in the system somewhere, but overall, it's impossible for a new person to get it right first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BowlCurtain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@BowlCurtain: Yes, generally newer accounts get flagged by automated processes more often than established accounts. Some automated processes will undo the edit on their own (but only if there's a 90%+ chance that the edit was vandalism), while others will let humans manually review the edit, like I did with yours. You shouldn't feel bad if your edit gets reverted, by the way. When I first started editing here, I uploaded a picture with a copyright violation, which, as I found out a few minutes later, isn't usually allowed. (I won't go into when it is allowed. That would get too confusing, and even I don't understand it all that well.) I'll leave an invite to a tutorial, as well as a page called The Teahouse for Wikipedia on your talk page so you can get to know the processes here better. —Gestrid (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm proposing rewriting of "Free Will" article in the light of new empirical evidence. I would like it to be a team effort, but I do not know how to invite people. The proposal is on "Free Will" talk page. Could you help me?
@Damir Ibrisimovic: Don't worry, people will come. It's only been a couple of hours since you posted to the talk page. According to a tool I use, about 607 people have that page on their watchlist. (That's not to say 607 people will participate. I'm pretty sure that would break some records if that were the case.) If no one comments on your post within, say, the first 24 hours, post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion (Yes, all three.), letting them know that you have started a discussion on Talk:Free will. Be sure not to start a separate discussion on each separate page I linked above. That would be counterproductive. Instead, say something like: I have started a discussion regarding new empirical evidence on the Talk:Free will.
One more thing: Before you do any of what I said above, you need to include probably two or three reliable sources stating what you have said on the talk page. (If you don't know how to cite sources on Wikipedia, see Help:Referencing for beginners.) If what you are saying comes from multiple sources, they all need to be sourced. If you do not do this, what you want to include in the article will likely be immediately shot down for that very reason, especially because, as the notice at the top of Talk:Free will says, Please supply full citations when adding information[.]
---
Thank you.
Sources are numerous. Benjamin Libet, for example, wrote a book on readiness potential and veto. But there are much more
in the variety of followed up experiments. The second part can be found on sport-training.
Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails
Hi there,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.
