User talk:BoArnezzz
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, BoArnezzz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Getting Started
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Thomas.W talk to me 08:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Please read Wikipedia's rules about non-mainstream theories, especially the part about not giving them undue weight before adding them again. Also read WP:BRD about bold, revert and discuss. You were bold when adding them, but were reverted, so no it's up to you to discuss it on the talk page and reach consensus before adding it again. Instead of re-adding it all, several thousand kilobytes worth of it, with a misleading edit summary, as you did. Thomas.W talk to me 08:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Both the suggested female sovereignty and the Pohjola theory have already been in the article. They are not "fringe theories" brought up by me. The problem is that related sources, both primary and secondary, are entirely missing. Inclusion of this has not been objected on talk, following my notification. Accordingly, I'll proceed to re-insert a few secondary sources and a couple of quotes from primary sources, which are widely referred to in related studies. A short description is given, supported by sources, to say from where the related studies and theories stem from. BoArnezzz (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest you start by reading WP:FRINGE, which starts by saying that "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Which means that theories that are not supported by a considerable number of scholars in its field can only be mentioned briefly, i.e. not by introducing several thousand bytes worth of text about it, and also means that theories brought forward by for example amateur archaeologists or other people who dabble in fields that they're not recognized as scholars in should not be introduced into the article at all.
- Also note that an unopposed "notification" on the talk page does not qualify as consensus, and does not give you the right to introduce whatever material you want into the article. Thomas.W talk to me 16:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest you start by reading WP:FRINGE, which starts by saying that "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Which means that theories that are not supported by a considerable number of scholars in its field can only be mentioned briefly, i.e. not by introducing several thousand bytes worth of text about it, and also means that theories brought forward by for example amateur archaeologists or other people who dabble in fields that they're not recognized as scholars in should not be introduced into the article at all.
- I agree with all of the above, and I've taken this into consideration. Proportionally speaking, both of these topics are widely discussed in related studies. Again, I have not introduced either matter to this article. My intention is to provide sources and - supported by sources - explain in as brief manner as possible what is behind these theories and/or the related studies. BoArnezzz (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Brief manner"? You add about 10,000 bytes of text to the article, including a number of ill supported guesses/speculations/theories about various things, some of which seem to have very little, if anything, to do with Kvenland... Thomas.W talk to me 16:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are continuing to revert to a source that is reported wrongly used on the talk page of the Kvenland article, the Norwegian online dictionary[1]. Please explain why you insist on using this source, although it has been shown on talk not be valid in this context. Also please explain what information or source specifically should not be provided in the article text. That way you can be answered. Please understand that the Pohjola theory and the female superiority in Kvenland have both been in the article all along. Yet, no sources have been presented. Now sources are presented. BoArnezzz (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Brief manner"? You add about 10,000 bytes of text to the article, including a number of ill supported guesses/speculations/theories about various things, some of which seem to have very little, if anything, to do with Kvenland... Thomas.W talk to me 16:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with all of the above, and I've taken this into consideration. Proportionally speaking, both of these topics are widely discussed in related studies. Again, I have not introduced either matter to this article. My intention is to provide sources and - supported by sources - explain in as brief manner as possible what is behind these theories and/or the related studies. BoArnezzz (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Kvenland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Thomas.W talk to me 17:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- User Thomas - you are continuing to revert to a source that is reported wrongly used on the talk page of the Kvenland article, the Norwegian online dictionary[2]. Please explain why you insist on using this source, although it has been shown on talk not be valid in this context. Also please explain what information or source specifically should not be provided in the article text. That way you can be answered. Please understand that the Pohjola theory and the female superiority in Kvenland have both been in the article all along. Yet, no sources have been presented. Now sources are presented. BoArnezzz (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Oslo University online Norwegian dictionary. Search for the word "finn".
- ^ Oslo University online Norwegian dictionary. Search for the word "finn".