User talk:Cretaceousa
Hello, I am Cretaceousa
TPG and RS
[edit]Hi welcome. Please don't just speculate. Instead talk about article improvements based on what is found in WP:Reliable sources. See for starters, WP:No original research, WP:FORUM, and the WP:Talk page guidelines. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- This feedback isn't helpful to me because it's extremely nonspecific, I have no idea what you're referring to or why you think I'm speculating. All of the edits to talk pages I made today were about stylistic aspects of the articles or details which were already mentioned in another article. Cretaceousa (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
(A) Every new ed needs to read those, so if you wish to succeed, context isn't really all that important. This place has a way of operating, and an veteran has suggested you need to know that stuff, so please do
(B)But to answer your question, I was refering to your speculation that the Pleistocene isn't over. If you go to that talk page, you'll find I archived the threads that date back to 2011 and before. Your speculation was added to two of those ancient comments and they were archived with the other pre-2012 threads at Talk:Pleistocene/Archive 1. If you want to start a fresh discussion on this topic, please do, but read the WP:Talk page guidelines and WP:Citing sources first, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just post here, and I'll see it here. No need to post back and forth on each others talk page. See WP:MULTI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- from Holocene "The Holocene has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1. It is considered by some to be an interglacial period within the Pleistocene Epoch.[8]". I was saying that the latter sentence should be in the Pleistocene article as well, as in my opinion the articles in their current form implicitly contradict each other due to that inconsistency. I brought up the concern about NPOV because, based on the statement in the Holocene article, there seems to be more than one perspective on that issue, and only one perspective was acknowledged in the Pleistocene article. Cretaceousa (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- OK now you're talking about what something else says instead of what you think. This is great progress! However, the problem here is that you're using one Wikipedia article as source to support a desired change in another. Wikipedia articles are not considered a WP:Reliable source. So that won't work. What you could do is track down a copy of the reference in the other article, read it, understand it, and if the other articles statement really is supported by that source, then please add a page number to that citation. The book, after all, is hundreds of pages. And then maybe the way forward on Pleistocene will be more clear. But the key thing is.... its interesting when our own article conflict, but in all cases you have to drill down to the sources on which our articles are based. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- from Holocene "The Holocene has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1. It is considered by some to be an interglacial period within the Pleistocene Epoch.[8]". I was saying that the latter sentence should be in the Pleistocene article as well, as in my opinion the articles in their current form implicitly contradict each other due to that inconsistency. I brought up the concern about NPOV because, based on the statement in the Holocene article, there seems to be more than one perspective on that issue, and only one perspective was acknowledged in the Pleistocene article. Cretaceousa (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Cretaceousa, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Cretaceousa! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC) |