User talk:Seoulseeker

I edited the introduction and entirely rewrote the plot summary for the page on Robert C. O'Brien's Z for Zachariah to correct factual errors. The plot summary contained many errors and omitted important details, generally presenting an interpretation of the text rather than a summary. This story is a first-person narrative with a demonstrably unreliable narrator. Many of the views and actions of the narrator, Ann Burden, are questionable in terms of reasoning and morality. Taking for granted the validity of her assumptions (especially those towards the end of the story) results in a very biased interpretation and misunderstanding of the main themes.

In response to your feedback

Hi Seoulseeker.... I think there will have to be a middle ground between being concise and fully explaining the plot! :) Unfortunately, that's one of the things that'll have to be achieved through consensus and collaboration.

I noticed you wrote a terrific explanation on YOUR talk page. You ought to put that same paragraph on the article's talk page so other editors can read and respond to it. That's where discussions about how the article is written take place. One of the editors mentioned Wikipedia's Manual of Style. You can find that on this page.

If you ever need any help with something, please feel free to let me know. Just click on the word, "Talk" after my name and you'll be able to leave me a message. I'm happy to help in whatever way I can. Cheers!

Wikipelli ^Talk 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and links to guidelines. I posted the explanation of the editing on my talk page because I'm new at this and couldn't find where to put it. Regarding the summary, I am working on reducing its length while keeping details that seem important for avoiding misinterpretation. The problem with this story is that readers tend to sympathize with the narrator rather than view her narrative objectively and critically. Facts that go against the narrator's assumptions tend to be completely ignored or distorted. If possible, I'd like to add more about interpretation, but it'll require some research and I'd want to balance it with some of my own interpretation if it's allowed.

I think it's great that you have such an interest (and expertise) in the topic. I want to let you know that you should be kind of careful in adding your own interpretations to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and adding one's own views or interpretations is really not permitted. Wikipedia operates on verifiability. That is to say that additions to articles - particularly when you get into the realm of interpretations - must be cited to reliable 3rd party sources. Thus, it would not be good to add, "In this book, the author was contrasting good with evil". It would be better to say, "Some scholars (researchers/reviewers/whatever) have interpreted this book as a contrast between good and evil" and then cite the sources of the information.

This is a thumbnail of what you want to be careful of. If you follow the links above you can find a much better articulation of what is allowed and what is not.

As always, feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions! Wikipelli ^Talk 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warning. I try to write objectively. However, I'm motivated to work on this because of the problem that the story is widely misinterpreted. Should the encyclopedia ONLY present standard views even if there is stronger textual support for a different interpretation? Through discussing the story on an educational website for a few years, I found other teachers who agreed. The story is interesting because it can act as a test of a reader's susceptibility to bias and wishful thinking.

You've kind of answered your own question above about including interpretations. You state that you have discussed the story with other teachers and they have a different view from yours. Clearly, it would be problematic for Wikipedia articles about books to present all interpretations. Again, I have to go back to venerability. If, in reviews published by reliable sources, various interpretations can be found, then those could be included (with references) in the article. But it would be very difficult to include everyone's personal interpretations. You might also wish to look over this page on including original research in articles.

Hope this is helpful! Wikipelli ^Talk 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of including "everyone's personal interpretations" about details. Any interpretation hinges on the reliability of the narrator. If an article assumes the viewpoint that the narrator is reliable, it is biased and misleading. To be objective, it should summarize the story matter-of-factly and explain interpretation separately. This article has existed for a long time with nothing more than a biased and factually inaccurate summary, so the result should be a more accurate and useful article.

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Seoulseeker, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Seoulseeker. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Seoulseeker. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Discussion with Robert C. O'Brien's daughter

Hello, as the main editor of the Z for Zachariah page, you might be interested in a discussion I'm having with one of Robert C. O'Brien's daughters about some edits she made to the Wikipedia page about her father, which might go some way to explaining the random edits I made to the Z for Zachariah article earlier today. You can see the back and forth of the discussion in the links above. Graham87 08:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17 concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17 concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Report from Group 17 (March 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LukeSurl^{t c} 22:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Z for Zachariah summary

Your message: Hi. Seeing your notice, I shortened the summary quite a bit. Please check it again and remove the notice if it is concise enough, or let me know why it still seems too detailed. Thanks. Seoulseeker (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've complied with your wishes in response to your good faith efforts.--SidP (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Report from Group 17 has been accepted

A Report from Group 17, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Z for Zachariah revision

Replied on the article Talk page.mambru19, 11/26/2014Mambru19 (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Literature Project Relaunch

Children's Literature Project Relaunch December 2018

Hi, I'm Barkeep49! You're receiving this message because at one time you had signed up for the Children's literature project. While the project has been largely inactive, I'm hoping make the project active once again. I think there are a lot of exciting directions we could take the project and I would love if you would join me by adding your name back to the active members list.

Recognized Content

Congrats to the following editors for having newly recognized content in November and December:

The Adventures of Abdi by IndianBio Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut Lotsa de Casha by IndianBio Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President Stranger with My Face by Fearstreetsaga	When Megan Went Away by Collin Wolf in the Snow Derrick Barnes by Bradv Whose Boat Is This Boat? by GreenMeansGo

Join the Discussion

Have some ideas of activities for the project? Need some help? Join in at the project talk page

Unless you sign-up as a member at the project you will not receive any future newsletters. If you would like to sign-up for just the newsletters or want to be an active member but not get the newsletters you can do that here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]