User talk:Odin 85th gen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
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?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
[edit] Your edit to Signature
The letters "L.S." stand for "locus sigilli", which is Latin for place of the seal. It can serve as a suggestion as to where a person who is sealing an instrument should place the seal. Also, in the U.S. states that still recognize seals of private individuals, there is a desire to make the creation of a seal as easy as possible, so simetimes just the word "seal" or the letters "L.S." serve as the seal itself. See, for example, the Vermont law on the subject at http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=01&Chapter=003&Section=00134 --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that. Would it be appropriate to enter the information you mention in the same text Signature? Odin 85th gen (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I wouldn't put something about seals in an article about signatures. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of SAMVA USA chart
An editor has nominated SAMVA USA chart, an article which you have created or worked on, 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/SAMVA USA chart 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) 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sarkar on Atlantis
However notable Sarkar may be, his views on Atlantis aren't, and that is what counts. You also added personal opinion about his ideas being confirmed, which is 'original research' and not allowed.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but simple claims are no substitute for an explanation. Allow me to add that the late P.R. Sarkar made his caim about Atlantis having been an island off the coast of the Netherlands several decades before the Doggerland discoveries. And, yes, that is a direct confirmation of his claim, which is also notable and not my OR. The way he arrived at this insight is also notable, but his psychic powers are well documented. If Edgar Casey is notable in this regard, so is Sarkar. The fact that Sarkar made the claim with reference to the Netherlands, and not the UK, may be purposeful. The British discoverers link the find to Britain. It is possible life on Atlantis had a closer link with the mainland than the British isles. In any event, I think this information should be reinserted in the article.Odin 85th gen (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't think you understand about notability. You need to find reliable sources that discuss Sarkar's ideas on Atlantis to show that his thoughts on Atlantis are notable. As for Doggerland, your edit was definitely original research unless you have some sources on Doggerland that discuss Sarkar. See WP:OR - "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Actually I guess what you have done is synthesis, put two things together. So, find your sources if you want the material returned. --Doug Weller (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I will try to locate Sarkar's book where the statment was published that Atlantis had been off the coast of the Netherlands. It's been over two decades since I read it. It's mention in the article is warranted as it is notable. I have not seen a published reference to Sarkars' statement and the Doggerland discovery. That part of the entry can therefore be dropped as you suggest. People can draw their own conclusions. Odin 85th gen (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand about notability. You need to find reliable sources that discuss Sarkar's ideas on Atlantis to show that his thoughts on Atlantis are notable. As for Doggerland, your edit was definitely original research unless you have some sources on Doggerland that discuss Sarkar. See WP:OR - "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Actually I guess what you have done is synthesis, put two things together. So, find your sources if you want the material returned. --Doug Weller (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'm sorry, but that isn't enough to meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. Sarkar is notable, but unless you can find enough reliable sources to establish that his opinions on Atlantis are notable, (in other words, people discussing them) those opinions won't qualify for inclusion. Only his opinions, etc that have been discussed by others are notable.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No problem, the ideas were discussed in some magzines at the time. I just have to track the sources down. For background, I could add, that Sarkar, as a leader of a world-wide religious (socio-spiritual) group, had his pronouncements discussed by his adherents or those examining his ideas. Many people enamoured by the status quo, including in government, felt that because Sarkar's views were an affront to the existing order they needed to be repressed. The Central Bureau of Intelligence in India launched a campaign to defame him in the early 1970s, including bringing charges of murder against him, of which he was later cleared. Foreign intelligence operations like the CIA, the Australian secret service and more picked up and used the "evidence" provided by the CBI against his followers, even after he had been cleared of such charges. This explains why Sarkar remains an almost underground figure, almost two decades after his passing, and despite the fact that his teachings were quite uplifting. Go figure.Odin 85th gen (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-