User talk:Edelward

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the request to remove vandalism on a page but you know if you see any vandalism feel free to remove it yourself too! just go into the page history and check the previous revisions and then when you find the one previous that was not vandalized just select "undo". Also if you find a section that contains vandalism that may have not been recent you can also edit it yourself too! more info can be found [[1]] because Wikipedia recieves an average of 200 edits per minute we can use all the help we can get! Thanks! Evenios (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism info

Thanks for the request to remove vandalism on a page but you know if you see any vandalism feel free to remove it yourself too! just go into the page history and check the previous revisions and then when you find the one previous that was not vandalized just select "undo". Also if you find a section that contains vandalism that may have not been recent you can also edit it yourself too! more info can be found here Wikipedia:Vandalism because Wikipedia recieves an average of 200 edits per minute we can use all the help we can get! Thanks! Evenios (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, tone it down.

Read WP:Assume Good Faith and "Wikipedia is not a battle ground". You're only going to make yourself look like a POV pusher if you keep up the name calling and accusations. You claim that an article you've never tried to edit is locked down, make claims without sources (see WP:CITE and WP:RS for help with those), and go after months or years old posts and accuse the editors of acting purely out of nationalism and propaganda. That only makes you look like an immature POV pusher.

If you want to get anywhere, try making the changes yourself, citing reliable sources that your additions, and maintaining a neutral tone throughout. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I am not a person to go down on something I perceive as serious corruption of science . But mayhap there are ways for me to fight for what I believe must be mentioned in historic article by some convenient way I don't know about .On that I'd gladly follow an advice

P.S. I have only now dug a new source,which prooves my point ,so I am not wrong by far:

The Roman governor of Britain Gnaeus Julius Agricola has directly spoken of the Picts as of no Celtic Britons .

In his classification of people he called Caledonii(people of Northern Britain or the Picts ) as Germanicum - Germanics. While this notion strikes as worthless nowdays it still prooves that eye-witnesses have perceived the Picts as strictly non-Celtic . In fact the governor of Britain strongly insisted on Picts being non-Celts Edelward (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not citing sources (give the title, author and page of a book someone can get ahold of). That's still not trying to make the change yourself. No one is going to edit for you, you have to edit for yourself.

Also, see WP:No Original Research. We try to limit the use of primary sources, sticking with secondary sources from academic publishers were possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well ,I guess , it must be learned by me quicker then opponent's response , anywhere those users have neglected the British Encyclopedia in their zeal to represent the matter as that pleases them .

áhttps://archive.org/stream/leabharnangleann00hend#page/n11/mode/2up

This is interesting because those guys use WP:No Original Research original research I mean -thaught of their own while I refer to golden classic facts ,which makes me unhappy since from the childhood I knew about Scottish animosity to Picts and seeing now days the total reverse of that is puzzling Edelward (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2014

I also don't understand while narrow minded editors,which delete the opposition have strengh in Wikipedia ,I meanit struggles to be objective ,I presume Edelward (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to represent claims as they are presented in modern scholarly sources. A book from the 1890s is not an ideal source. Paul B (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]