User talk:EdwardSmith

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

• Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
• To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
• You can experiment in the Sandbox.
• For help, see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
• Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

Justice maximism

Is there any group, person, or literary work associated with "Justice maximism"? If so, please add that information to the article. Gazpacho 12:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please do not remove VfD notices while the voting is still in progress. If you believe the nomination is unwarranted, go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Justice maximism and explain why this is so. Persistently removing VfD notices is considered Wikipedia:vandalism and might get you blocked. JRM 13:25, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Goodwill

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and even if it were, I'm not sure that your definition is very good. I suggest you calm down a little and consider whether you are right to push your POV as you have with the ascerbic comment on the article; not least since you seem to be but four days into your Wikipedia contributing experience. Perhaps others who have been here far longer than you do, in fact, know more about the aims and policies of the encyclopedia. Just a thought. --Tagishsimon (talk)

• He's putting these definitions on Malice and Justice as well as Goodwill. I reverted them the other day, he reverted back, and I'm reverting again now with a link to here. -- Schaefer 02:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welcome, Edward

Edward, if you're reading this, hi! Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for donating your time to helping us improve its content. Understand that these reverts are not a personal attack against you, but, as Tagishsimon said, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You've made good encyclopedic contributions to various pharmaceutical articles. You should read the Wikipedia guidelines so you can continue to improve the encyclopedia. Be especially aware that Wikipedia is not a place to submit original work and ideas, but a place to report on the pre-existing ideas of others. As valid a philosophy as Justice maximism may be, it's a topic for a personal website, not an encyclopedia article. Autobiographical contributions, like those you have made to the article Edward Smith, are also frowned upon. But don't be discouraged! Everyone makes mistakes when they're starting out, and once you get a feel for the rules and what exactly Wikipedia is, you'll be on your way to making valuable entries. Ciao! -- Schaefer 02:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

reply to Schaefer

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary" -1. Dictionary-style definitions are typically the introductory lines in encyclopedia articles, 2. so what you are saying is that you would accept these entries in wiktionary?

"Autobiographical contributions, like those you have made to the article Edward Smith, are also frowned upon." -I have made large contributions to science, so I have EARNED an encyclopedia article. I would not have entered an encyclopedia artical of myself if I had not earned it.

"Wikipedia is not a place to submit original work and ideas" -There is hardly anything original about justice maximism; it is an extreme fundamental polar state of consciousness. I am surprised that no one else had thought of it before I had.

-EdwardSmith

Edward, as you observe, we would indeed welcome well written dictionary entries in the Wiktionary. But not in the Wikipedia.

I note your claims on your contributions to science. Would you be able to direct us towards any peer reviewed papers you've written. I understand these are the traditional way in which contributions to science are marked.

I'm confused by your third assertion. You say "I am surprised that no one else had thought of it before I had." which seems to be a suggestion of original research (or original inspiration, if you like). Yet you use this sentence to refute a claim that you have breached the wikipedia policy on "not a place to submit original work and ideas". Perhaps you would like to elucidate? --Tagishsimon (talk)

-Yeah right, as if I'm going to explain anything to people who have deleted all of my most important contributions to wikipedia. I have better things to due than verbosely trying to justify myself in exchange for the the smallest and most reasonable of things. Just get a dog and wave doggie treats over it's head and make it do tricks instead; I'm out of here.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to falsely portray this as a sign that I have no explanations. -Edward Smith

Indeed. The conclusions people draw, eh? --Tagishsimon (talk)