User talk:Lucatelospiega

January 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Belarus. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. ceradon (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

But I'm puzzled. What do you mean by my contributions are vandalism??? I do not understand. In what sense am I vandalising Belarus? My references are clear and don't seem (at least to me) to offend or offer biased views. could you please elaborate on your decision to descard my edits? Thank you in advance for letting me understand.

let's revise together what I've added. And remember I have cited material already present in wikipedia:

A fourth theory suggests the the term "white" comes from the Central Asian nomadic color system (also present in the Chinese and Mongol systems): in that system white=west, black=north, red=south, blue=east. Then Belarus (White Rus') should mean Western Rus' [22](this color system applied to various geographical descriptions of Slavic lands often contrasting red and black polities (where red ones lie south of the black ones) and referring to the westernmost as white (bordering Germanic or Polish polities) [23][24][25][26][27]. Lucatelospiega (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're claims were pretty outlandish, but I'm willing to assume good intentions. On Wikipedia, anything that's likely to be challenged must be cited. I know you cited it, but you can't use other Wikipedia articles to cite information. You have to use reliable and independent sources to cite any information you add to articles.

To review: (1) Anything that's likely to be challenged by a reasonable individual must be referenced (here is some potentially useful info on referencing) (2) References must be from reliable sources (i.e. books by respectable individuals/publishers; news articles, etc.) that are neutral and independent from the topic. (they do not have some type of vested interest in pushing any particular point of view) (3) You cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source.

Wikipedia is always looking for editors interested in making this place better. If you want to join, great! The mistake you make might be construed as vandalism; please refrain from making those types of edits. Furthermore, you're welcome in this community but please familiarize youself with the concepts I've laid out above. Hope this helps, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your expanation. I still hardly understand why the theory of Belarus=Whiterus'=Western Rus' sounds outlandish to you (or should be challenged by a reasonable individual) since the Mongols dominated Rus' (not modern Russia) since the 14th century till the 16th and could easily have exported their system. furthermore this theory is cited in the Italian wikipedia. In any case it sounds more logical than White Russia as Christian and Black Ruthenia as Pagan or White russia because of the garments usually worn in that country. I understand the guidelines you wrote down and I will surely abide by them. Thank you. Lucatelospiega (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)