User talk:Little sawyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hi Little sawyer, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

  • Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
  • Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

How you can help:

Additional tips...

  • Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The Image:Signature_icon.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
  • If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Roleplayer Good luck, and have fun. --Roleplayer (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

I'm afraid I had to remove your DRV request from the page. Instead of following the instructions, you pasted the entire content of the article there, which broke the formatting of the page. If you need help making your DRV request again, let me know. Please do not post the actual article content to the DRV discussion, though. -- Kesh (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have undeleted Megalithic geometry following your substantial changes to the article. I've also initiated a debate on it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry (2nd nomination), where you need to go and precisely and succinctly make a case for it to be kept this time. No promises, though, as one-man theories don't often manage to jump the inclusion hurdle. Splash - tk 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Megalithic geometry

An editor has nominated Megalithic geometry, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please read

WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Unfortunately, these ideas are TOO FRINGE for inclusion in Wikipedia since they have received no outside attention or notice. Redirection is the cure. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the AfD did not address this. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The sources are not the issue. The soapboxing and promotionalism are the issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
What's soapboxing?--Little sawyer (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:SOAP -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Times Article

The Knight & Butler article was in Arts & Entertainment, so I don't think you can use its inclusion in the Times as evidence that the Times took it seriously. --Doug Weller (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know that. But at least they talked about it, and didn't ridicule it, which is a form of (indirect, perhaps) endorsement, as opposed to just any lunatic Internet theory they would never have mentioned.--Little sawyer (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning about interaction with other editors

Please see the policies on civility and assuming good faith. Next time you make an edit like this one, I will disable your editing privileges. Jehochman Talk 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some (probably unwanted) advice

I think you have been your own worst enemy, to be frank. A couple of suggestions. Read up on some good stuff on mesolithic and neolithic Britain (and I guess the Bronze Age). That should help you to put Butler, etc in some sort of archaeological context. Numbers as I am sure you know are tricky things and if you want to assign meaning to them you usually have to interpret them. Look for original sources if you can when reading fringe writers. I'm not saying dismiss them, but a lot of these people are basically writing for money and often don't check their own sources or reply on what other people have written and when you go back to the original source you can find some real surprises about what they actually say (speaking here from experience). Others are True Believers and need to be treated like Creationists (and if you are one, I apologise but there you are). You also may not be aware that standards are quite a bit higher for Wikipedia articles than they were a couple of years ago. Doug Weller (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your advice. --Little sawyer (talk) 15
56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)