User talk:SilkySword

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello SilkySword! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button

located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 00:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the note. I'm sorry it was only my very first few hours on this great website, but I'm getting the hang of it! I've actually spent the last 12 hours on here, so I learned so much already, including on that edit summary feature! Is it possible to go back to those old edits and write an explanation on what I did? I hope so, I don't want to anger anyone or be misunderstood! I usually will always have a good, logical explanation. I hope you'll notice this 'talk' and respond soon. SilkySword 11:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Takfiri

Hi there. I don't pretend to know anything about the subject of this page, but I noticed that you and another user, Senenth heaven 7 are in a bit of a revert war. I would suggest you take your disagreement to the Talk: Takfiri page. If you can't resolve things, you can request arbitration from admin. I'm leaving the same message at the other user's talk page. -- Flyguy649 06:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Abgar V, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir. I am new here and I am translating a book in which this Abgar's name was mentioned. I am Arab and I know Arabic names and where Arabs were geographically at the time Abgar lived. There were no Arabs where he ruled at the time. I found he was Assyrian in the Arabic version of the title. That is what I relied on. Due to lack of time in looking up a reliable source outside Wikipedia, I could not add my source. I only wanted to correct a historical fallacy quicly. Please accept my apologies. SilkySword (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. One of the sources provided for the article says, "It was the birthplace of Syriac literature and the kings and inhabitants of Edessa were usually called 'Arab' throughout by the Classical sources." If there is disagreement among the sources in this regard, and they are equally reliable, then both viewpoints should be included with explanation and attribution. Elizium23 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll definitely look into that further when I have the time. In turn, I appreciate immensely your time and feedback. God bless.SilkySword (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]