User talk:Big-dynamo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you get this message and would like help or just say hello post here [1] Enjoy your time at Wikipedia! Phgao 12:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race egyptians

please make your edits more short and to the point you are making the article to long--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Race of ancient Egyptians

You said "Don't waste my time." Well, if I may respond in kind, don't waste the time of others without even referencing the explicitly stated subject of the article, as stated in the first sentence, which indicates that the page in question is a description of the current dispute regarding the race of the ancient Egyptians. In fact, that is made very clear by the opening sentence of the article. Didn't you read that? It is missing information regarding facts and evidence because that isn't what the article is about in the first place. You are, in effect, trying to introduce material in the article which does not fit within the stated scope of material of the article, and getting annoyed at the other editors on the very contentious article in question for not allowing you to change the subject of the article. It doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. In fact, if you note the probation tag at the top of the talk page, you'll see that any editor found to engage in disruptive edits can be banned from the article and related pages, which means any material they added to it can be removed without question. That's about the most serious penalty we've got. Please don't waste the time of yourself or others by attempting to unilaterally redefine the scope of the article in question, without consensus from others to do so, which would be required. It might be possible that the editors primarily interested in the subject would be willing to make such changes, frankly, I don't know. But such pronounced additions to the article as you have made, particularly if restored again, could lead to the page being completely protected, meaning only admins can edit it. In fact, the article has been completely protected before.

The article is about an extremely contentious topic. Using the judgmental, perjorative tone you have used hardly helps alleviate the controversy regarding the material you seek to add, and makes it, unfortunately, slightly more likely that you yourself could be made subject to a ban from the subject. Please seek and get consensus to have the material you seek to add on the talk page before unilaterally adding it again. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Within the bounds of wikipedia phrasing, the article basically does say that the article is basically exclusively about the current controversy. I can and do understand your frustration with the idea. It wasn't particularly warmly received by me when others agreed to it in the first place. Like I said on the talk page, the title seems to have been taken as a way of presenting the subject as concisely as possible. And we do have articles discussing, or "rehashing", academic and cultural debates, in fact, in religious subjects, many such articles. You could probably say the same thing about them as well, and about many articles we have relating to other specific ideological disagreements. The reason the material was removed was because, whether you knew it at the time or not (and I'm not faulting you if you didn't), they were off-topic relevant to the subject of the article, the recent debate in the media and elsewhere. I personally don't doubt that the material you added, which was verifiable and notabile as per wikipedia guidelines, has a place in wikipedia. Just not in an article about a recent controversy regarding the ethnic makeup of an ancient people. If I were you, what I would personally do is copy the material you added to the article, move it into userspace, and then try to add it to some other articles on the subject. I note we don't have anything regarding artistic representations of Ancient Egyptians yet, and that is a potentially useful article which much of it could be added to. There are any number of other articles relating to ancient Eypt, in fact a whole WikiProject, devoted to the subject as well. If it were me, I'd start the article on artistic representations of ancient Egyptians and/or cultural depictions of ancient Egyptians and any other articles which you think the content might more directly relate to. You have my apologies that the useful material was removed from the article. However, given that the article is and has always been the cause of significant controversy, as indicated by the ArbCom ruling, everyone does try to ensure that any potential problems with the article are resolved as quickly as possible, to ensure that things don't get out of hand again, like they have in the past. Like I said, I think most of the content you added is relevant to wikipedia, just maybe not to that specific article. If you were to want any help in recovering the text you added, or maybe locating existing or new pages to place it, I and the AE Project would probably both be willing to offer what help we can. I'm sorry you basically innocently wandered into a minefield, which is basically what happened here, and got some damage as a result. I am however willing to offer what help I can, to the degree time and circumstances permit, to help you relocate the content elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)