Tatelyle

Hello, Tatelyle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.   Introduction  5   The five pillars of Wikipedia   How to edit a page   Help   Tips   How to write a great article   Manual of Style   Be Bold   Assume Good faith   Get adopted

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or get instant online help at IRC. You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

Hi,

in case of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article, you need to find find reliable sources that are not self-published material for acceptable sources for Michael Davias' ideas about the Carolina Bays before adding his ideas to the article. His conference abstracts are not acceptable for use in Wikipedia because they are not peer-reviewed and are primary sources. Another problem is that Mr. Davias argues the alleged impact event predated the start of the Younger Dryas by tens of thousands of years. Paul H. (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Carolina Bay

As above, plus you used self-published material by Ralph Ellis, who fails WP:RS by miles - here's his website.[1] Have you read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS? Doug Weller talk 19:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And? The works of Ralph Ellis demonstrate far greater knowledge and understanding than you could ever dream of. I have seen your constant meddling around Wiki before, which is amply displayed on your talk-page. Nothing you do is for the betterment of knowledge, instead it is all designed to reinforce your limited world-view. Tatelyle (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

NO, he's (you are) an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.63.192 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

February 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Firestone carolina bays.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Firestone carolina bays.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Abgar V

@Tatelyle: Thank you for your recent contribution to Abgar V! This is an obscure topic, and you seem to have knowledge in this area, so your contributions are most welcome. However, you didn't cite any sources. Can you provide additional references for your claim? If not, I may have to do some more research myself to substantiate your claim, which might take a while... Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Exodus, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tgeorgescu. But I quoted Moses of Chorene (ancient chronicler), Acts of the Apostles, and Prof Robert Eisenman, who is perhaps the world's expert in this field. Tatelyle (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Tatelyle.

 Warning @Tatelyle: Your edit to The Exodus is very problematic and concerning to me as an editor. You removed both substantive information and a citation to a scholarly source (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2002) and replaced it with contradictory uncited content. You may not remove material from Wikipedia simply because you do not agree with it. I recommend reading Wikipedia:But it's true! Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

My content WAS cited. And what you (someone) has done here, is remove my material presumably because they did not agree with it, despite my citations. Josephus Flavius gives a specific date for the Exodus (reference cited), which should be mentioned in the Exidus dating section, and it was removed. Why? Tatelyle (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Do take the time to read the blue links from the July 2017 warnings. Wikipedia has rules and every editor is expected to abide by them, if he/she is properly warned and he/she still doesn't, he/she is subsequently blocked. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not really any of my business, but you forgot to answer Tatelyle's question. I found that sort of thing annoying when dealing with you in the past Tgeorgescu. Woscafrench (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

He/she already had the answer, if he/she wished to read WP:OR: invoking what Josephus wrote is original research based upon primary sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Tgeorgescu, you are completely wrong on this, and I will go over your head if necessary. Flavius Josephus is NOT a primary source on the events of the Exodus. Your 'blue links' say that secondary sources must be used, who are.... a. chronologically separated from the events, b. one step removed from the event, c. provide an analysis or evaluation of the primary source.

Quite clearly Josephus Flavius is a secondary source. He is chronologically removed from the Exodus and is providing an analysis of the accounts by primary sources, of which he cites many but primarily Manetho. Josephus agrees with some of what Manetho says, but disagrees with other sections - which consititutes an analysis. Josephus is not simply quoting Manetho. So 'Professor' Josephus is a secondary source, every bit as much as Professor Finkelstein is. In addition, Josephus is 1,500 years removed from the events he is writing about, so how and why do you consider Josephus to be a 'primary source'? He is further removed from the events of the Exodus than any modern historian writing about the Medieval period, so why are you deleting my references to Josephus? Tatelyle (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You're parsing words/wikilawyering. Josephus is a primary source for modern historians because he isn't a modern historian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

And therefore Flavius Josephus is a reliable secondary source who is freely available and has widespread coverage, regarding the events of the Exodus. And my reporting was dispassionate and reported the facts. So why did you remove my addition of Josephus' chronology? Tatelyle (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

In our book, Josephus isn't a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Polite suggestion

@Tatelyle: I'd encourage you to take a break from editing Wikipedia while reading through our policies. You seem to be running into problems fairly regularly with basic Wikipedia editing policies, such as WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR, and now your behavior seems like disruptive editing. Until you can learn to abide by these policies, your edits to Wikipedia may do more harm than good, even if they contain valuable information. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree here with what Sondra says, and would also recommend taking a serious look at WP:CONSENSUS. The way consensus works on Wikipedia, a single new editor should generally not impose their preferences on an article when all the other editors disagree with them. Continuing to make the same sorts of edits, alone, over the disagreements of every other editor, will often be considered disruptive, and generally will result in a block at some point. If you want to continue being allowed to edit on Wikipedia, probably your best bet is to leave the Wikipedia article alone if you're not having any success in bringing anyone around to your position. Wikipedia does not allow disruptive editing to continue indefinitely. Alephb (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard: the exodus

Hi Tatelyle. For your request for dispute resolution, you need to go to the talk page of each person involved and tell them about the request you've made. You'll find info on how to do this at the top of the dispute resolution page, in the section headed Do You Need Assistance. All best :) PiCo (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

iPad

It's not easy to edit with an iPad, but what do you méan by saying there's no "view"? You can preview with an iPad. I always use desktop mode for Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Climate denier

See Climate denial which is a redirect. I should have said Climate change denier to be clearer. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

SPI investigation

An SPI discussion has been opened here, that you are involved in: [2]. Alephb (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-time use of Wikipedia to advance a personal agenda and for sock puppetry, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tatelyle.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 15:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)