User talk:GenesisBlade

Welcome!

Hello, GenesisBlade, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Lectonar talk to me!

Great Pyramid additions

Hey! I'm sorry for removing factual additions- you need to realize the problems we have with anonymous vandalism here on Wikipedia. I mistook your entry (in an area that isn't really my specialty) for a personal viewpoint rather than scientific theory. Again I'm sorry about that. The other thing is, because Wikipedia articles have so many articles, you don't mark down sections as being written by a seperate author, you just write them right into the article. All the best, and I hope you enjoy Wikipedia. --Scimitar ^parley 14:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's no problem. I can understand the position, and the problems. Lets see what the people think. Cheers--Genesis 16:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hello GenesisBlade, we seem to share some interest in the theories surrounding the pyramids. I've read some really intriguing things online, but unfortunately do not know how to confirm studies or measurements cited, and the Wikipedia understandably doesn't reflect such "radical" ideas. Regardless, I was thinking about writing some additions to the article, but since I'm new to Wikipedia I figured I'd talk to you a bit about it first. In particular, I'm considering posting theories claimed here and here. Any guidance would be appreciated. Moogle001 16:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have additions you can offer some basic evidence for or reference to other writing, then go ahead in my opinion. Plenty on that pyramid page was accepted opinion dressed up as fact, such as the age of the pyramids. I'm not sure that Wikipedia shouldn't recognise radical ideas, just as much as it recognises accepted mistruths, but then, alas, i don't run the show! There are some very interesting books you might want to read... you could google Ralph Ellis (author) for some interesting factual and interpretational stuff. I reckon, if you state in a heading that these are other less mainstream ideas, it should boost the value and validity of the article. Feel free to drag me into any argument that arises! Speak anon --Genesis 12:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: alternative theories on the pyramids

As much as I sympathise with your dilemma, it is not my place to question the process we have (particularly as I find it satisfactory, if rough around the edges). Certainly I cannot outright revolt against it and keep an article that AfD agreed to delete -- trying to change the institution by riding roughshod over it would accomplish nothing. And while I regret that your hard work has been, well, wasted, the fact is that there is little that can be done. You might want to try appealing to deletion review, though I'm pessimistic that it'll accomplish much. In the mean time, there are a lot of existing articles that can be improved. It should also be noted that Wikipedia's nature does not give much weight to experts, and while we are seeking to address this, we need to be open to suggestions from the ordinary editor (and IMO, this is something that should never change). After all, some of our best work was reviewed by people without an academic title to their name at FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All these suggestions have been made before, but have come to naught. It should be noted that there's already a holding area, though -- it's called user space. So, while drafting the article, you can keep it at, say, User:GenesisBlade/alternative theories on the pyramids. When completed, you can move the article into the main namespace. :) Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it absolutely clear to you, I did not nominate the article for deletion just to "have my way". In fact I stumbled across it while on RC Patrol. I have no interest whatsoever in the pyramids or alternative theories. I honestly thought the article was badly written, did not provide any references and was extremely POV and opinionated in the way it presented the information in an "us vs them" style. I hadn't even read either of the articles until just before I nominated this one for deletion, so please don't accuse me of "mainstream" bias. The article was deleted purely on the merits. It was a shoddy piece of work from the start, and was so poor in places that even when I tried to edit it to a more encyclopedic tone I could make no headway. The fact that you couldn't bring it into shape in the week that it was on AfD perhaps shows just how bad it was in the first place. If you had all the references at hand you should have put them in the article in the first place. As Johnleemk suggests above, you can work on creating a better article in your user space, with proper references, then try to get the article undeleted by demonstrating the new much improved version that you would replace it with. You can do so by following the procedures at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Again, I have no interest whatsoever in the pyramids, I nominated the article (and I t\would like to think that it got deleted) purely on its merits. Zunaid 07:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

If you add any more material like this, [1] [2] you may be blocked without further warning. Apart from its inappropriateness in a policy, it's an attack on a living person. Please see our BLP policy that guides what we're allowed to say about living people. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Genesis (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your note.[reply]

The particular quote was "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field.^[1]" with the second sentence my addition.

He has no qualification for this role. I could proclaim myself to be a wikipedia guru in just the same fashion, and with about as much justification. Good luck to him, in many ways, because he has made a good living out of selling rubbish to idiots. But he is only a usability guru because he says he is and it is laughable that the "great" wikipedia allows him to state it as though it is fact. He created a (very poor, designed for the early 2000s and now defunct) website, and claimed to be a usability guru.

Thus it was an appropriate example, even if it is one you disagree with.

March 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Godwin's law. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handmaiden in Egypt

Just wondering if you have a source for the references to handmaids being used in religious services in Egypt in the Handmaiden article. I'm taking out some things in the article that have been unverified for 3 years, and the stuff you put in is a big part of that. But I don't want to delete anything that's sourced! Alden Loveshade (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ The self-proclaimed usability expert Jakob Nielsen is an example of this.

[1] The self-proclaimed usability expert Jakob Nielsen is an example of this.

[1]