User talk:Ledjazz

Welcome!

Hello, Ledjazz, 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Jacques Grinevald. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article ready for deletion. No specific need to have this page in English and I modified the pages that linked to it. Ledjazz (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joan Martinez Alier has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added references and improved the article. Ledjazz (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jacques Grinevald has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article ready for deletion. No specific need to have this page in English and I modified the pages that linked to it. Ledjazz (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add {{db-author}} (include the curly brackets) to the top of Grinevald's page. This will alert an administrator that you want the page to be deleted. Bgwhite (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ledjazz (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness Ledjazz, you have moved with startling speed here. I was composing a reply to you, when I found you have preempted any discussion, and gone ahead with your proposals anyway. It is good to be bold when it is appropriate, but it is also good to make sure you are not riding roughshod over current editors. I see also, you have been replying to inactive IPs and banned users who last commented six years ago! That seems a strange place to invest energy --Epipelagic (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the advices. How could I know that the user was not active anymore on WP? (BTW, I just figured out the "long story" of the banned user you refer to... This is astonishing.) This is just to see if my proposal of a new article on biophyscial economics gathers some interest. Ledjazz (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now bear with me. I support what you are trying to do, and I will help you if you want it. You have created a bit of a mess here; so please have some trust and be patient. The moves you have made are not aligned with a number of Wikipedia guidelines. For example, you may not create a disambiguation page if it has only two options. Further, the article you called "Bioeconomics (biology)" is misleading–at the very least it should be "Bioeconomics (fisheries)". I accept you are doing a thesis on biophysical economics, so presumably you know what you are talking about in that particular area. But outside that area, are you really so sure you know what you are talking about?

Economic articles related to sustainability or ecology, including the one on bioeconomics, have been distorted on Wikipedia over a period of years by a POV pusher (now banned), and it seems many of the distortions were never properly cleaned up. Google Scholar returns 8,720 academic articles containing "bioeconomics AND fisheries", and 2,100 academic articles containing "bioeconomics AND (biophysical OR thermodynamics)". Anyway, the primary use of the term "bioeconomics" is to do with fisheries, so to be aligned with the guidleines the article should about the fisheries context. That article would then have a hatnote directing to Bioeconomics (biophysical). Another problem is that that article doesn't exist.

I'm not trying to discourage you Ledjazz. It would good if you wrote the article on Bioeconomics (biophysical), or "Physical bioeconomics", or whatever you want to call it. That would be really useful, and it seems you have the background to do that! I don't know what the difference is between biophysical bioeconomics and thermodynamical bioeconomics. That's a specialist area. I get the impression that the latter is overrun by cranks. I presume you understand these issues, and you can make a really good contribution to Wikipedia if you clarify what the issues are. Best regards :) --Epipelagic (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Sorry for the confusion. I let you repair the "mess" according to the guidelines and will focus on the contents (what I hopefully know better). good luck. Ledjazz (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, these moves cannot now be undone without wider community involvement. I'll attempt to arrange that when I have time. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Post-normal scientists, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]