User talk:24hourwealthcoach

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
 * Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
 * Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
 * The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
 * We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome!

Binary Sexology
Do you think that the entry Binary Sexology meets the "attestation" requirements of WT:CFI? It looks a bit dubious to me, so I'll request it for verification. Judging by your Wikipedia user page, you seem to know what you're talking about and maybe you have a few citations in print of this term? &mdash;Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

G'day Ian. Try the first two or three links on Google. It's not dubious, it's just very new science. Despite NLP being around for 30-40 years there are still some people who discredit it. I'm happy to supply a tome of references (many of them come from Masonic sources so may be hard to share). I feel that it is far easier to prove binary sexology than it is to prove something such as hypnotherapy, psychology or any related fields. By its very definition, binary sexology is "black and white" and can be tested, whereas many other pseudo-sciences cannot be verified or categorised. Binary sexology is perfect duality, male/female, plus/minus, yin/yang, one/zero. 24hourwealthcoach 04:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry, I should have been more clear what I meant by "dubious". It doesn't matter whether Binary Sexology is a pseudoscience or not; it can be included in Wiktionary all the same. What I meant was that it looks like the term doesn't see enough use for inclusion in Wiktionary. It needs three citations in durably archived sources (meaning book, but not web because web sites can disappear or be changed), each independent of each other, as described in CFI. So if you have three different books that use this term, then it's valid. &mdash;Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah! NOW I get it! :-) Thanks for clarifying. I take it that magazines or newspapers are not durable or archivable? Currently it is not in any books (although it will by December 2011), so I guess that however scientifically valid, it is Wiki invalid. 24hourwealthcoach 07:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Magazines and newspapers are indeed considered durably archived. Ones that are available in web archives are better because editors can check them easily but I think that any is valid for attestation purposes. :) I should also mention that citations should be formatted according to WT:QUOTE (just skim that page for format information) and you can use the templates, and  to help. :) &mdash;Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)