Unjustified deletions of Gavin Menzies 1421 and 1434 books

It has recently come to my awareness that the individual pages for Gavin Menzies books 1421 and 1434 have been deleted by a couple of troublemaker vandals who are attempting to call it a "merger" which is just a lie because all of the original information in the 1421 and 1434 articles have been deleted. The articles themselves are extremely biased and contain alot of personal attacks against Gavin Menzies, despite Wikipedia's policy of Biographies, that they must not be libelious against the said person. If you look at the history of both 1421 and 1434 as well as the Gavin Menzies page you can see that there are a couple of misfit vandals who consistently edit war until the article itself retains a biased bigoted stance against Gavin Menzies and his books. Virtually no neutral point of view has been established in these three articles as it seems there are a small minority of troublemakers who want to suppress and prevent Gavin Menzies information from either going public or gaining legitimacy.

I propose that all the said deleted articles must be restored to their former glory and that the three articles be edited in a good faith manner to maintain a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy was a troll, writing stuff like "we simultaneously represent the collective sentient cerebral function culminated from the populous of our infinitesimal minute planet Earth. ". Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==

I fully support inclusion of text on 1421 and 1434. Obviously, if correct, his first book's theory robs Christianity of the credit it takes for discovering the entire world and reduces the likes of Columbus and Magellan to piggybacking on Zheng He's exploits. Meanwhile, his second book undermines the credit Christianity takes for jumpstarting the Renaissance, a term that, by the way, nobody used until the 19th century. --Arthur Borges 07:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Menzies' theories are attractive from an iconoclastic perspective, but because they are based on weak assumptions and inaccurate data it is highly unlikely they are correct. There may be some who feel threatened by the theories' challenge to cultural and academic assumptions but the theories' lack of support in the academic community is well founded on methodological and logical bases. As many of his readers have discovered, Menzies is a poor historian. The question of merging Menzies' books with the biographic article has been discussed at length on the talk pages. Joja lozzo 13:47, 21 May 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) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!

November 2009

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as the edit you made to Incarceration in the United States. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. If you want to point out that a link is dead, add the following in-line (not in the ref section itself) after the ref tag it is first used, substituting the appropriate month and year: {{dead link|date=November 2009}} —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Gavin Menzies, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Hi - this was in no way a minor edit. Editors should be able to ignore minor edits on their watchlist knowing that Minor edits do not include changes in content. Some of your changes may have been acceptable (although some needed sourcing), others suggested that it's only Western academics who agree with him which is simply not the case. In addition, Menzies doesn't present archaeological evidence, he presents alleged archaeological evidence, a lot of which is just rubbish. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not read the Wiki definition of "minor" and apologize for the inconvenience caused. I am now informed and shall strive to apply it.

In reply to your assessment of Mr. Gavin's work, I would like to think you read 1421 and 1434, which run to 629 and 345 paperback pages respectively, not counting the indices. Of course, bits of old wood, stone towers and pottery shards definitely qualify as rubbish in the eyes of your average beachcomber, but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and archaeologists are notorious for writing long articles on bits and pieces of rubbish found here and there.

The trouble with Mr. Menzies' work is that he has opened a can of worms and each requires individual treatment for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. That will take time.

Moreover, Mr. Menzies is out to share a personal adventure and writes like an explorer, which obtains style and anecdotal add-in content foreign to the rules of academic writing.

Finally, when it comes to extraneous content, the inclusion of the anecdote about the accidental collision of HMS Rorqual with a USN vessel is entirely irrelevant to the man's thesis: the only purpose it serves is to discredit the man.

Indeed, every bit of feedback I receive on him here at Wiki invariably ends with putdowns on the man.

Rewrite it as you will, but while we're throwing around value judgements here, I'll quietly contribute my opinion that some NPOV content here is simply WASPcentric POV.

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) 00:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]