| Revision as of 22:06, 17 November 2011 editIan.thomson (talk | contribs)58,562 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:12, 17 November 2011 edit undoWheres Dan (talk | contribs)198 edits →Why you need to quit using outdated sectarian sourcesNext edit → | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| I see you bring up Herodotus as an example of an ancient source which should be allowed. Herodotus is not a reliable source, but his works are period documents which ], ]. Stick with modern sources. ] (]) 22:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | I see you bring up Herodotus as an example of an ancient source which should be allowed. Herodotus is not a reliable source, but his works are period documents which ], ]. Stick with modern sources. ] (]) 22:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :Nothing is outdated until refuted, discredited; proved otherwise. You're just an ankle biter nitpicking. Find modern sources to refute the sources being used. You're not a source. | |||
| :] (]) 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:12, 17 November 2011
Welcome!
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Wheres Dan! Thank you for your contributions. I am Brookie and have been editing Misplaced Pages for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Misplaced Pages:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! 09:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- Wheres Dan (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Denyen
Your additions to this article have serious problems. You apply qualifiers like "it is said" to the dubious statements, but if reliable sources don't support an idea, giving it space in the article is undue weight. Some of your statements have reliable sources but are worded in such a way that they appear to support a more dubious notion. For instance, the sentence "Archaeologists have described as being of Indo origin" is obviously supposed to imply that the Denyen had a connection with India—but in fact, the authors said "Indo-European", a far broader group. And just because there's a legendary figure named Denyan in Russia doesn't mean he has anything to do with the Denyens of the Mediterranean. The article should not even imply that he does until a truly reliable source says there is. I am removing the least credible portions from the article. A. Parrot (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The Denyens' history in Eastern Mediterranean is said to have been lost. This explains the lack of knowledge of them. Searching through digital literature they are found consistently. What is added is supported by antiquitical sources, archeologists, and historians.
- They recently discovered an Indo-European settlement in Russia 3000-4000 years old. It is in the Southern and Eastern Russian region where the Mordvin, said to have absorbed Aryan tradition who sing about the Denyan moon God, were and are located. It is quite possible this Indo-European group branched off with some heading NorthWest, others due West. If they were known to travel by water, they could have made it to Scandinavia as believed via Russia from India instead, as being suggested, to have come up from the Mediterranean. They could have had an extensive global trade network stretching from India to Arabia and India to Scandinavia which at some point in history became connected around Europe. But that is unsourced and only theory lacking archeological evidence. It's not like it is being claimed Ramadan is derived from Rama and the Denyen.
- This is the tough aspect of antiquity with so much being lost. At least it appears the group was able to remain identified through the use of their tribe's name. Remember the logic in archeological.
- We do not use 'logic' in editing articles, please see WP:NOR. Nor do we use self-published books or Sunday School magazines (see WP:RS. If you are going to cite a journal we need the name of the article, authors, etc, not just 'Mediterranean Archaeology' which I presume you found with a Google search - and as if I'm right and you did, what you see in a snipped without having read the context can be misleading. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- You deleted antiquitical sources. Nice logic. It seems the genesis of Langley probably believes rainbows are forever and water flows before a heat source like the sunday school mentality and mythology their mind is of.
- Wheres Dan, you will not be allowed to make any more additions unless they are cited by modern academic authors. Everyone agrees with me.--Tataryn77 (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- There goes 8erodotus.
October 2011
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Misplaced Pages pages, as you did to Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Advertising and using Misplaced Pages as a "soapbox" are against Misplaced Pages policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Date formats
Please read MOS:DATE. The articles you've been editing are about American subjects, so should use the American format, as specified, October 16, 2011. 16 October 2011 would be the international format, and "16 october 2011" would not be an acceptable format at all. I seem to remember it being used in Polish references, but I'm not sure about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
November 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Kristallnacht, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
RSN
See WP:RSN#Bible geography for schools. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Tribe of Dan. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Your edit summary here was clearly a personal attack. Misplaced Pages:Vandalism says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Why you need to quit using outdated sectarian sources
- WP:RS says:
-"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -"Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available..."
- WP:NPOV says that calls for "reputable books and journal articles" as the best way to achieve neutrality.
- WP:FRINGE says "Reliable sources on Misplaced Pages include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."
I see you bring up Herodotus as an example of an ancient source which should be allowed. Herodotus is not a reliable source, but his works are period documents which modern historians may examine, because that's not Misplaced Pages's job but their's. Stick with modern sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing is outdated until refuted, discredited; proved otherwise. You're just an ankle biter nitpicking. Find modern sources to refute the sources being used. You're not a source.