I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Hi. When you recently edited Philistines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Israel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Speed Niggs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Discussion removed by User:Til Eulenspiegel
The following discussion was started by me on User:Til Eulenspiegel's userpage, but later that user removed the whole discussion from his userpage. So I'm reproducing it here:
Hi, you seem to have removed this discussion from your own page I'll reproduce it here.–Jérôme (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The phrase "known to scientists" is uninformative for several reasons. First, everything presented in an encyclopedia is supposed to be known be science; if it is not known by science, then we should not be inserting it into Wikipedia! As such, all sentences in Wikipedia could be followed by "known to scientists", making this a completely unnecessary sentence. Also, by the way, nothing is just "known to scientists": What is known to scientists is always also known to everyone else, since scientists publish they findings! What is more, the phrase "known to scientists" smells of unscientific content: People use it to justify any claim they want by mentioning, without citing, scientists. If there is a source for any claim on Wikipedia, then it should by cited, not alluded to by the phrase "known to scientists". In conclusion, I will re-remove the phrase "known to scientists" from the article Ethiopia; it has no place in an encyclopedia! –Jérôme (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (BTW, feel free to remove the whole sentence if you think it's wrong, or better yet – find a reference, but not by inserting the phrase "known to scientists"). Thanks!
- Nonsense, encyclopedias cover all kinds of areas that are not "known to science" (especially this one), where do you get these pompous ideas? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, it seems you like to use the 'revert' function a lot, so I won't try to have a edit war with you. Anyway, just to explain to you what I mean, in case my explanation was not enough: Science is the general term for the methodology we use to derive knowledge, including knowledge in Wikipedia. While we don't do science ourself here on Wikipedia ("no original research"), we use the results of science everywhere. Yes, information about the history of humanity in current Ethiopia is researched by science, and the information about it that we present on Wikipedia is known to us by science. So, is it correct to add the phrase "known to scientists" after any sentence in Wikipedia? Yes, otherwise we shouldn't be citing the information. Should we use that sentence? No, since, by the rules of Wikipedia, it is redundant. Now, I don't know whether you revert things just by principle, be it manually or by some tool, or whether the article 'Ethiopia' is dear to you personally. Maybe that phrase is one you wrote personally and want to see intact? Please explain what information we should be including in Wikipedia that are not 'known to science'. I think the best thing you can do is trying to be productive on Wikipedia – add things, make things better, and don't spend your time in reverting blindly – I know that's what I'm doing. Cheers –Jérôme (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)