User talk:Geojoeman

Welcome!

Hello, Geojoeman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Ark of the Covenant does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 12:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Ark of the Covenant, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I just edited and the edit was rejected- I believe everything was factual Exactly what in the edit is not acceptable?? Newbie- navigating wiki help daunting. Click "here" directions seem to lead nowhere of to "permission" pages which apperently i dont yet have?? very confusing. No easy way to get quick answers Please help me with... My edit on a new location for ark of the covenant this morning. My claim: All references are either from the Holy Bible or from a legitimate website source. So, a new "possible" site for the ark of the covenants location is actually supported MUCH BETTER than other sources which really site no solid evidence!

Geojoeman (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Geojoeman[reply]

Hello Geojoeman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia, and that means that articles must be neutral statements of fact. To achive this goal, Wikipedia has three fundamental principles: Neurtral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. When writing articles, it is also important to remember what Wikipedia is not, specifically that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even if you believe something to be absolutely true, it does not belong on Wikipedia if there is no reliable source to cite. Your edits 733109148 733109434 appear to be speculation, and were removed by another editor. When writing on Wikipedia, you should always phrase things as a statement, and not as a question. The fact that the site is a "possible site" makes it, almost by definition, speculation.

If you would like quick answers to questions, you can join us for live assistance in the IRC: #wikipedia-en-help. Happy editing! AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

second attmept...same day- today to edit a page Ark of the covenant possible location I have remained neutral- citing NO opinions, Citing ONLY the Holy bible and only one secure, verifiable website and publically known archeological information.. Specifically, what is it that perevents the edit?? Please help me with... Posting it Geojoeman (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Geojoeman[reply]

Hi there. Your edit was rejected because it appeared to contain original research. You're welcome to re-add your information, but you need to cite a reliable source, so that we know from where your information is originating and readers can verify it if they wish to. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is a primary source, you'd need secondary sources discussing it. The Wyatt site completely fails our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Unlike writing an essay, you can't build an argument based on a variety of sources, our articles simply reflect what the sources say in proportion to their significance (which often means their use in other reliable sources). Doug Weller talk 15:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Wyatt - unsourced edit

I've reverted you as your text was unsourced. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've now asked at WP:FTN for someone else to counsel you. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ron Wyatt has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ron Wyatt was changed by Geojoeman (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.914797 on 2016-08-09T11:44:58+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

" In fairness to Mr. Wyatt, there may be socio-political motives by Israeli authorities in these statements." That's your comment, right? Please read no original research. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sourced, templates, etc.

"Who" is written {{who}}. We don't need sources in the lead (introduction) so long as they are in the body of the article. Please don't put even templates into the middle of a quotation, eg "Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology[date?]" - in any case it isn't at all clear that that means. I've named the 7th Day archaeology professor. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Ark of the Covenant. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]