User talk:StephenMacky1

Archives

Message

Hi. I wanted to know how to acess your sandbox? I’m new to editing and i also wanted to know how to add links to new informations if it’s possible. Thank you Nutshell875 (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Here's a tutorial - Help:Sandbox tutorial. For more information, you can see Help:My sandbox. To be honest, I haven't used the sandbox, so I can't tell you much about it. As for links, you can use square brackets. See Help:Link. There are different types of links though, so you might need to be a bit more specific here. But anyway, if you have any additional questions, you can ask. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vergina Sun

Hello, I'm Super Dromaeosaurus. An edit that you recently made to Vergina Sun seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It wasn't a test edit. Your edits did address some of my concerns though. However there's still room for improvement here. The part about houses in Kruševo having star patterns reportedly resembling the Vergina Sun should be attributed to Tom J. Winnifrith. The claims about ancient Macedonian heritage and Alexander might be unnecessary though and I don't see their relevance to the article, which focuses on the symbol. Perhaps it's better to move the fringe views to Aromanian nationalism. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the automated warning out of laziness. I'm okay with atributting the claim to Winnifrith. Regarding the Ancient Macedonians claim I think it's fairly related and it's anyways short info so it does not violate WP:DUE but I can also remove it, it's just a shame that the information on the Aromanians will be pretty short then. I did think of mentioning this info on the Aromanian nationalism article before, I will probably do it in the future. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this version [1]? I shortened the sentence about the claims on Ancient Macedonians as I think it's relevant to mention it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thanks. One more thing though, the symbol mentioned by Keith Brown in Cowan's source is actually a rival/alternative symbol to the Vergina Sun, since it contains only eight rays and not sixteen rays. So, this should be made clear in the article too. Apart from that, I have no other concerns. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article already says "An eight-pointed Vergina Sun star". I can only think of rewriting it to "An eight-pointed version of the Vergina Sun". Do you have any other wording in mind? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That sounds good. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you for the cooperation. Have a happy editing. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False claim on disrupting Nietzshe article

I edited for Pro-German, Anti-Polish bias and language. Citations from antisemitic, pro-German Government funded research used for propaganda purposes should be described as such bias in order to not influence the reader but to educate them. Citations and wording are biased interpretations of Nietzsche despite his own words and actions presenting clear desire to disconnect from his Germanized identity should educate the reader, not influence them.

How is this "distrupting" the article? It is removing obvious bias. I added citations as the original were not even relevant to the points being made. 2A00:F41:48B4:2642:3D97:825E:2564:EFA1 (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the sources of an article, head over to WP:RSN. By the way, Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources. Editors are forbidden from analyzing primary sources. After being reverted, the onus is on you to try to obtain consensus for the material that you want to restore. Pro-tip: If you want to try to address a perceived issue, at least try to do so constructively. I don't see how your edit is trying to educate the reader by inserting original research and inappropriate labels. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are fine to include, it's the context language that needed correcting.

You are the disruptor based on reverting edits that correct the page. There's literal translations that are factually wrong which were referenced.

"Relies mostly" on secondary sources is a dubious statement and it's also irrelevant. The edit isn't adding any analysis on primary source. It simply adds the original source for historical context. What/where is the "analysis"?

The onus is on you to explain your undo once the newly referenced material is added. 2A00:F41:48B4:2642:3D97:825E:2564:EFA1 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]