User talk:Cotton16

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Cotton16! Thank you for your contributions. I am Dougweller and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Ancient Aliens, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. PTJoshua (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Aliens[edit]

"The show presents a theory that directly contradicts established scientific research."

Um, that's why it already has a pseudoscience tag on it. But then again, I think most religions contradict established scientific research as well, so to be fair, why not add a comment like that to all their articles and see how many people you piss off. You may not agree with the Ancient Aliens concept, and that's fine, but just because you think it's bullshit, doesn't mean it is beyond a reasonable doubt, bullshit. So, your statement as presented in the article is your personal opinion and violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. If you want to become a fair editor - learn the concept of NPOV. Because to make such a claims and present them as fact you have to find a reliable third party publication somewhere to back up it up as fact. That by the way, is pretty much impossible, it is a "theory" after all, like most of religion and science, and anyone else saying the same thing is giving their personal opinion too. Cyberia23 (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ease up on the hammers! The only thing Cotton16 did not do was cite an expert source. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, sorry you've been received this way by one of our editors, that's not the way we expect new editors to be treated. If you want to comment on that, I've raised a complaint at WP:WQA#Cyberia23 and a newbie. It is true that we need to source our statements, and if you look at the article again you'll see that your edit has had the effect of getting others to make sourced additions to the articles, but new editors often don't understanding our polices, especially on sources and original research (see WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I annoyed anyone I'll be sure to cite sources in the future. I didn't think saying that a show, which presents a hypothesis that contradicts scientific consensus, has been criticized was that big of an issue. I'll be sure to cite though next time. As to Cyberia23 statement that adding a comment to articles on religion should also require a statement on their scientific validity if this one is given such a statement; well there is a difference between this show and religion. That is religions don't claim to be about science for the most part. Sure sometimes they try to but for the most part they do not and are concerned with other things like getting to heaven etc. The show however does try and present itself as presenting a scientific idea and so I would expect it also should also be possible to level criticism against it without it being able to hide behind "well its just like religion you can believe what you want". The show comes off as very one sided especially since it does nothing to present the other side of the argument. Even the pages on this website that discuss more legitimate scientific theories that have yet to be proven or dis-proven include a section that presents criticisms and alternatives. So naturally I figured that adding one sentence saying it has been criticized by archaeologists, anthropologists, historians and astronomers would not be too controversial. On that note if I wanted to cite a source for that do I need to find a scientist who is "large in the field" with one of those subjects criticizing it or would a few articles from less well known people work? Since I made the mistake of making such a broad statement would that mean to cite it I would need a broad survey of scientists in that field to use as a source or should I reword it entirely? Thank you guys I shall try to avoid making mistakes like this in the future. --Cotton16 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. With this article, you'd need to find sources discussing not ancient aliens but the show itself. Your question is a bit tricky in that it depends on a number of thingsl. You might want to attribute statements, eg 'Daniel Boone wrote' or 'Several scientiets' if you can source several, but what I'd suggest is if you have any doubts, post at the article talk page and ask for comments, as it's easier to deal with specifics. Certainly the sentence you wrote would need inline citations (see WP:CITE to at least one of each, maybe more. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally comments like the one you wanted to add to the show would probably be better on the main subject article the show is about - ancient astronauts - and there is plenty of negative commentary there already. The article for the show Ancient Aliens should only contain info specifically about the show and it's episode summaries, not whether a bunch of "experts" (who you didn't specifically indicated) think it's nonsense. If you feel the need to include such information it would best go in a criticism, reception or review section, which should be backed up by reliable established third party articles saying the same thing. You need to find someone else making those claims (and people on forums and blogs don't count) and use their words, not your own (or else that would be violating WP:OR). My other concern is that too much info on an article is leaning to one side's opinion - right now on Ancient Aliens there is too much going against it, not to mention it's frequently hit by vandals and I'm sorry to say your comments seemed to be adding to it which is why I went off about it. Compounding the issue is that our friend Dougweller, a person that I know dislikes the program and hotly contests any notion of ancient astronauts - stood by your original edit which made me especially suspicious of it. Anyway, I'm sorry if I took you the wrong way, and I apologize if I came off rough on you, it was nothing personal. It just frustrating sometimes to keep this article under control (especially one I spent a lot of time on) to see it get thrashed all the time. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberia23, any notable criticism of the TV show is absolutely appropriate for the article about the TV show. There is no Wikipedia guideline describing how an article about a television program's general subject matter (such as ancient astronauts) is where to put criticism of the television program itself. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please keep on editing but don't take things personally when your edits get changed or reverted. Folks are human here so sometimes tempers get a little short. Gerardw (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sagan[edit]

Thanks for your addition to the Carl Sagan page about the Demosthenian Literary Society. Do you have a citation for this award? Without a citation the change will most likely be reverted by another editor as unverified. Allecher (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Members to the Demosthenian Literary Society[edit]

While the Society may vote to elect an honorary member, the membership is not official until such time as the nominee formally accepts the distinction. As Stephen Colbert and Carl Sagan (or those currently representing him/ his estate since his death) have not formally accepted their election to membership, they are not yet honorary members.

Linguistic2010 (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Phi Kappa Literary Society with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Igoldste (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edit things poorly and have a dumb username. Editing pages is hilarious. Reference to strip clubs. False feeling of superiority. This is dumb. This is dumb. This is dumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotton17 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Phi Kappa Literary Society, you may be blocked from editing. Don't vandalize the Brickheap's page. By doing that, you are giving Demosthenians and Demosthenian alumni (like me) a bad name. Jhortman (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]