User talk:Scienceandhistorygreat1

September 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I did nothing wrong. I simply added that the speakers might were Greeks ( Because we don't know for sure). Scienceandhistorygreat1 (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scienceandhistorygreat1, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Scienceandhistorygreat1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Greek Neolithic development theory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Greek Neolithic development theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek Neolithic development theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It odvious that it is a theory, it doesn't hurt anyone and it includes sources . Why are you "targeting" me ? Scienceandhistorygreat1 (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't understand the problem. I simply added information. Other editors do the same.

King Regards Scienceandhistorygreat1 (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to see some verification that your sources exist

Two experienced editors can't find them. This is a serious problem, and if you can't show that these sources exist, you'll be blocked. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir . There are 3 main sources. 2 books and a documentary of BBC about Early Greece. Scienceandhistorygreat1 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provide proof that those books exist and have been published in reliable academic outlets. In the case of Papadopoulos, provide proof of what it actually says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can I provide proofs ? I'm new in Wikipedia and I don't know many things . Scienceandhistorygreat1 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the books exist, you should be able to link to their publisher, Amazon, some bookseller, Google books, give us the ISBN number and clear author and title. And page numbers where you found the information. We might need quotes. For the documentary, its name and who said what. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay . I will try to do what you asked . Should I write them in the article ? Scienceandhistorygreat1 (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, just here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some words of advice

Since you are quite new in Wikipedia, it is natural that you have not grasped all the different rules that govern participation here. It is, however, important that you take some time trying to make yourself aquainted with some important policies and guidelines regarding content and conduct.

One of the main principles of Wikipedia content is verifiability, that other people using the encyclopedia can check the information, see WP:V. This is secured through the use of reliable sources, see WP:RS. We do not write what we "know", but we report what is written in reliable sources. In a field like history, that will usually mean that we report from scholarly sources. What you know or think you know and what I know or think I know is not of interest to Wikipedia; that constitutes original research, see WP:OR. That also means that we do not comment on or discredit what the scholarly sources say through editorializing, see WP:EDITORIAL. Criticism of a source can only be done if there are other reliable sources stating a different view, in which case we present both sides with a neutral point of view, see WP:NPOV.

In the article Hephaestion, there are two sources given for the sentence "Some modern scholars have also concluded that Hephaestion and Alexander were lovers". The parenthesis you added seems to be your own point of view. Such editorializing comments are not allowed in the voice of Wikipedia, unless you can back it up with reliable sources, which in this case would have to be scholarly sources criticising the view of Fox and Cartledge.

Wikipedia is a community project, where editors co-operate in order to improve the articles. The content is decided through consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS. If there is a disagreement about what to write or how to write it, the main tool for gaining consensus is to discuss in the article talk page. One method for this is the BRD cycle, see WP:BRD. When your Bold edit here was Reverted by me here, the next step should have been to open a Discussion at Talk:Hephaestion. Just making the same edit again, without even an explanation, is the hallmark of edit war, see WP:EDITWAR. I do not do edit wars, so I will not revert again, but my suggestion is that you first self revert and then start a discussion in the talk page in order to gain consensus for your addition. Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay , I understand. Thank you for your advices. I will edit it again and I will add sources .

King Regards Scienceandhistorygreat1 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would only add to @TU-nor:'s suggestions that instead of needing sources your edit seems to be just a useless duplication of sourced statements already presented below by the same section, namely:

1. "It has been suggested by some modern scholars that as well as being close friends Alexander and Hephaestion were also lovers although hardly any of Alexander's extant ancient Greek or Roman biographers ever refers to Hephaestion as anything but Alexander's friend" (notes 54 and 55)

2. "The ancient sources generally name Hephaestion only as a good and loyal friend of Alexander's" (note 57).

Please forgive my poor English.--Jeanambr (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You english are great . I did not noticed iy . Thank you . I will not change it. Scienceandhistorygreat1 (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

genetics does not determine nationality

Your statement about Minoans being Greeks based on a 2019 genetics study is the worst kind of absolute rubbish. Genetics cannot determine nationality, or culture, or language - the Minoans were NOT Greeks - they spoke an entirely different language that has not even been classified yet. It may not even be Indo-European. Shared bloodline is not the same thing as being the same ethnicity/nationality. 50.111.25.210 (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Greek Neolithic development theory

Hello, Scienceandhistorygreat1. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Greek Neolithic development theory, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Greek Neolithic development theory

Hello, Scienceandhistorygreat1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Greek Neolithic development theory".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]