User talk:KendallKDown: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:17, 12 September 2010

Welcome

Hello KendallKDown, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.

Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Dougweller Good luck, and have fun. --dougweller (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petra

The Rekem addition could be interesting but without a WP:FOOT from a WP:RELY source, how can anyone assess its quality? We cannot figure out if an editor copied this from a bad source and is actually misinformation. We would like to avoid that. Please help by supplying a citation. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken, I've given you a welcome message about with lots of links. Please especially read the links Student7 mentions above. Personal comments really should not be in articles, and you and I are not reliable sources unless we have published what we are using for the source (and then we shouldn't use it probably because of conflict of interest, but post it to the article talk page for someone else to use). Your edits just a few minutes ago really need reworking in this light. dougweller (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Kyrle Down

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to David Kyrle Down, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. —Paul A (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Sorry but I've had to remove your comments at Behistun inscription. Have you read WP:OR yet? Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know (and I hope this is the way to reply!) I have read the WP:OR and it seems to me that the photographs I posted are original sources; the conclusions drawn from them are - well, I don't know what you would call them! However please note that there is no reference given for the assertion I dispute, namely, that access is difficult and was deliberately made so. KendallKDown (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS as well. You really need to remove that edit. Basically you have two choices. Put a fact tag on the assertion - {{cn}} which a bot will come along and date, and wait a month or two, or delete it outright. Ideally editors should look for sources before they add fact tags. In your case, I guess you could do the 2nd, which is just remove the assertion entirely - you could put a comment in the edit summary explaining why. But your footnote is original research. We had a pilot once asking if he could use his personal experience in the same way you are, he was told definitely not. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have rewritten the footnote, removing all personal references and referring only to the photographs. Does that make it acceptable? I still find it strange that a wrong assertion - without reference - can be accepted but my contrary assertion is not, *because* it doesn't have a reference! KendallKDown (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

===

Hmmmm. I've been thinking about this "original research" thing. My understanding was that Wikipedia was set up so that ordinary people could contribute knowledge from their own area of expertise. The "original research" rule means that ordinary people are only allowed to contribute if they can quote someone else talking about that other person's area of expertise.

I appreciate that Wikipedia wants to ensure accuracy and high standards, but it seems to me that this rule is directly contrary to the purpose and ethos of the original Wikipedia. If the pilot referred to by Doug Weller had some knowledge which no one else had, surely that is important? The only questions should be, is he telling the truth? Can he provide evidence in support of whatever it was that he knew? Anyone want to comment? KendallKDown (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfC Submission

Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Finlay Munro was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! --Slon02 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Finlay Munro. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. Chzz ► 12:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Finlay Munro was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Kyrle Down

The above article is being improved to a higher quality and you are invited to help increase the WP:V and neutrality of the sources. You will notice that most of the article has been cut, due to the lack of referencing on the interview information. If you could provide a source to an outside website/book that contains these interviews, that would be great so they can be used to reinstate the content of the article.--Gniniv (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Template:Wikiproject Young Earth Creationism invite[reply]

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 ==[[David Kyrle Down]]==
 The above article is being improved to a higher quality and you are invited to help increase the [[WP:V]] and neutrality of the sources.  You will notice that most of the article has been cut, due to the lack of referencing on the interview information. If you could provide a source to an outside website/book that contains these interviews, that would be great so they can be used to reinstate the content of the article.--<span style="background:black; color:red;font-size:small;;font-family:Freestyle Script;">Gniniv</span> ([[User talk:Gniniv|talk]])  09:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
+{{Wikiproject Young Earth Creationism invite}}