User talk:Lorynote

Themistoclea

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Themistoclea, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.women-philosophers.com/Themistoclea.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Themistoclea

A tag has been placed on Themistoclea requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WuhWuzDat 13:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Themistoclea. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. WuhWuzDat 13:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Themistoclea. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WuhWuzDat 13:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serpent (symbolism)

Where exactly in the Britannica url do you see the word Bible? You've got no source for serpent cult. You're using an obsolete etymology that isn't in our article on Tiamat. Why am I bothering? Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Minoan civilization. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Minoan civilization. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Last warning Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still more problems with sources

Once more I'm finding that you are misusing sources as well as using sources that are clearly not reliable. At Yangshao culture you used a self-published work by someone who writes about Tao, suggesting that there was no question that it was a matriarchy, whereas that is in fact the subject of dispute. You also added a source to two articles which you claimed said Minoan culture was matriarchal, despite the fact that it only referred to their religion (as you've been told by other editors). Consider this a formal warning that this must not continue, please. When you've been told that a source doesn't back your claim, you shouldn't just replace it, you should discuss it at the talk page of the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

You are messing up articles because you don't cite properly, and you're also failing to give the relevant page numbers for books, and this is required by policy. Look at the citation style used in the article, and read WP:CITE. Other editors shouldn't have to clean up after you, I know it takes more time to to it properly but if you do it properly it is less likely that you will be reverted. Please fix [1]. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Serpent (symbolism). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Serpent (symbolism). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You've been told by two editors that this isn't sourced properly. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

The idea that the name "Israel" contains the name of the Egyptian god Ra is a shallow superficial New Age type speculation which is out there, but it founders on the fact that the name of the Egyptian god contains an `ayin or voiced pharyngeal consonant, while the Hebrew word israel has a glottal stop in the corresponding position. In the Semitic languages and Egyptian, these are two entirely separate and distinct consonant sounds. Furthermore, as I said before, Semitic etymologies usually proceed by way of triconsonantal roots. AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using unreliable sources yet again, alleged aliens have nothing to do with serpent symbolism

At Matriarchal religion you've added [2] which is all about what her source considers our alien ancestors, the Anunnaki [3]. Now you must have read what you added, so I can only assume that you actually believe this nonsense. Seriously, you will end up blocked again if you just ignore what I and other editors are telling you. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about sources you think are reliable where others don't

You have several editors criticising your use of sources. What you should do, on the article's talk page, is copy the statement from the article or that you want in the article, and copy the part of the source that you think backs that statement. Maybe that will help clarify why you are being reverted. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matriarchal religion

You are edit-warring, please stop, and please provide some sources for the claims you are introducing into this article. pablo 12:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide some sources? Some? Lorynote (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable sources, from a reputable publication; each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. etcetera. pablo 13:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd echo this. Please discuss sources on the article talk pages, or take them to WP:RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further echo here. There is a raft of scholarly sources about matriarchal religions/matriarchal societies out there. I'm afraid information from random and pretty anonymous websites are not going to be sufficient in this area. You could try Google books if you don't have access to a library. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hrs for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Matriarchal religion. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added that OR list of societies which you think were once matriarchal to the article four times in half a day. That violates the 3RR rule. When you come off this block, please do not edit war in this way again. Please discuss on talkpage and use reliable sources to support material that you wish to add. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Matriarchal religion. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. See this edit [4] where you claim that Merlin Stone sees the serpent as a symbol of 'ferility'. If you knew Stone, you'd know that she specifically says the serpent was not a symbol of fertility - something that appears to be fairly well known, and her book makes this explicit - see the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Calculus. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I have reverted your edit to Calculus. See my 3 edit summaries ([5], [6], [7]) - DVdm (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lorynote, you copied text from Maria Gaetana Agnesi into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit you re-introduced the same content to the article again, without going to the talk page and providing a source that (1) cleary does not contain any part of the content that was introduced to the article, and that (2) cannot be counted as a wp:reliable source on an article about mathematics. This is a source about catholicism. I advise you not to re-insert the material into the article without (1) proposing it on the article talk page first, and (2) having a proper reliable source that backs the actual content. I also recommend a reading of wp:BRD. I have removed the content again. This is your last warning. Re-inserting might get you blocked from editing again. DVdm (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lorynote, here is an excellent source on Maria Agnesi and the witch of agnesi curve [8] use material like this in the calculus article, not the Catholic Encyclopedia. [9] here's another on Agnessi - maybe it will provide info for the article on her [10]. There shouldn't be a problem with mentioning maria and the very famous witch of agnessi curve in the Calculus article, but you have to source it to maths articles. Keep it brief and to the point. And don't edit war, because people have their eye on you now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiririsha

Lorynote, you didn't remove van Sertima although your edit summary says you did. Also, would you please see WP:CITE and not just add an url and page number? In fact, with an edited book, you really should say who wrote p.400. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think she intended to. Needs help with actually formatting references though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think she meant to, which is why I've left it for her today. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked this account for being a sockpuppet of Jackiestud (talk · contribs), a previously blocked account. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]