Talk:Dinner Plain

Open formulation, I've looked at some of the recent additions you made. Would you be willing to review them to ensure they meet Wikipedia's standard of an impartial tone? When writing an article, you usually don't want to take info straight from their own descriptions, because then the article might come off as promotional. Also note that for the time being I've moved the sources down to the bottom, because it doesn't really make sense to have them in a box in the middle of the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out. I have already been treated poorly by HiLo48 referring my entry as clumsy, cheap holiday guide and for non English speaking persons. I note you have been nominated as my mentor and perhaps I have been referred to you. I didn’t realise my article would generate such interest in a small village in Australia. The article is impartial and based on evidence based referencing and yet people are continually attacking me making this an uncomfortable zone. It is not an advertorial and people are interpreting this way for grounds of disapproval.

I have been impartial and non judgement as it is on the record. I do appreciate your knowledge base but if Wikipedia chooses to ignore verifiable facts presented in straight talk, rather than academic jargon, then accuracy comes into question. Open formulation (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

My article falls within guidelines, yet were deleted by HiLo48 even after references were provided in correct format.

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.

It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts

WP:OR

WP:NOR

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Simple calculations are not original research, see § Routine calculations. The guidelines which are only added to it appears not apparently reverted with resultant mishmash of adhoc contractions.

The “rules” are not, allegedly, setin stone but rather writers are encouraged to “be bold” as Wikipedia is open to change?

The notion that editors can be “anyone” is an attempt to represent inclusiveness and is a misnomer as any attempt is constantly “reverted” or abusive, arrogant, elitist and mocking responses occur, as in my case.

Please find conversations with HiLo48;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dinner_Plain&diff=prev&oldid=1292476376

More corresponding examples;

The reason for the Referencing being in the middle of the page was not of my doing, but happy it was to appease HiLo48 after the “OH FFS NO!!!! Comment clearly visible on edit talk. This is an acceptable abbreviation for profanity so maybe lead by example. I would still like to refer this to an independent formal complaint mechanism as it is totally unacceptable. One is beginning to believe this forum is a supercilious community masquerading as being everyday community members enforcing policy and procedures.

Take a look at Kerang entry for Victoria Australia and the blatant advertorial for tourists to visit the solar panels which waffles on and on, it’s obvious only selected entries are challenged. I also note you refer to my references being moved “for the time being” as if a fore gone conclusion of not being permanent. Open formulation (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this because you appeared on my mentorship dashboard. I'm aware of the discussion and it doesn't need to be copied and pasted into this talk page; I'll collapse it in a template so it doesn't take up space. The problem is that the tone doesn't match how other articles are written. Things like "you need to travel for shopping or other need" and "Television, for those interested, has either no reception or is limited to those who have a smart TV in their accommodation" make this read more like a guide for visiting than a plain description. Note that we shouldn't be using the word you in articles at all. For the references, it's strongly encouraged that they be added as footnotes using reference tags. I'll leave some helpful links on your talk page that provide guidance on this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are so familiar with the conversation but no comment? Open formulation (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The academic practice of self directed learning is totally evident here, with links sent for everything. Nurturing new members is considered better mentoring than ongoing electronic learning with individual learning styles not considered or determined. Despite all the formality of structured formatting Wikipedia itself is not considered credible enough to warrant referencing in academia. The reply mechanism used should have limited space for response otherwise people will utilise same and therefore the receiver shrinking and downsizing would then be obsolete.

Change resistant tired old academics are fast becoming a thing of the past as they do not represent the mantra of being Bold Open formulation (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)