User talk:Geri lgfx

Sumerian language

Stop spamming webpages containing unscientific nonsense, please, thanks. --Thogo (Talk) 09:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Sumerian. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 03:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Those informations are correct (source locations are on the image too), and that document is free to copy, therefore i re-add it. greetings: Geri

Please be aware that if you insist to keep adding the link against consensus, you risk being blocked from editing. "source locations are on the image too" is nowhere near good enough. If you want to discuss academic academic sources (WP:RS), feel free to do that on the article talkpage, but pushing obscure claims of linguistic relationship by links to image files is not acceptable. --dab (𒁳) 13:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you suggest to create a new wikipedia page to it? - Geri.

Look, I'll try to make this clear. The link you're adding contains an analysis (yes, claiming similarity or relatedness between words is a form of analysis). You, Geri, are not an expert in the field, and your analysis has not been published in a peer-reviewed publication. This analysis is your own, Geri's, original research. That is forbidden on Wikipedia by the WP:NOR policy. This analysis also contradicts the accepted wisdom of authorities in the field of Sumerology (among other things, it claims some correspondence between Hungarian and Sumerian words, it claims that the Sumerians had a word for "angel" etc., that the Hungarian word for "angel" comes from Sumerian and not from Greek as mainstream linguistics would have it, etc.). That is forbidden on Wikipedia by the WP:NPOV policy (scroll down to section "Undue weight"). Finally, not only the analysis, but even the facts are wrong - already the first examples of Sumerian words such as "istanu"= God are non-existent. WP:EL also forbids "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research (See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms)"; as explained above, your material is inaccurate and you are not a reliable source. Finally, there is a consensus of editors (Dbachmann, me, Emilyzilch, earlier Thogo) that the link should stay out of the article, and edit warring against consensus is also forbidden. So, as Dbachmann put it, you risk being blocked if you continue. Now you're informed.--Anonymous44 (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Csillamfaszlama

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Csillamfaszlama, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 19:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)