User talk:Lopthaena

Welcome!

Hello, Lopthaena, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offence :)

Hi Lophtaena, I'm writing here instead at the article talk page, since this is more a general comment. Your edits have certainly not "caused offence" I would say, that the ip-editor removed all of your changes instead of just the contested part about place of death was probably due to their inexperience. Now, conflicts due to (local) popular tradition vs scholarship happens (inevitably) quite often. If the popular stuff can be sourced, we normally can't just remove it (despite the source being a local newspaper or whatever). The solution is often to include both the reliable and the popular, but making it clear what is what. If scholars say John Doe died in X, popular tradition that he died in Y or Z we don't put this on "equal footing", writing: "John Doe died in X, Y or Z", but more like "According to [Scholar so-and-so] John Doe died in X. According to local tradition he may have died in Y or Z." Something like that, tryst you get my meaning.

Your seem knowledgable in a field were Wikipedia has far to few good editors, and your contributions are more than welcome. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask here (I'll watchlist you user talk) or at my talk. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, apologies - I see that kind of a solution has already been adapted at the article. Finn

Rindahl (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Thank you. I'm afraid the ire aroused by one person makes further edits not worth pursuing. I started with this article as an 'easy option'! Men, takk for hjelpen.Lopthaena (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the following if that last phrase of yours is the only Norwegian you know ;) Som jeg skrev er det stort behov for bidragsytere som har innsikt i middelalderen, og ikke minst ansvarlig kildebruk. Om opplevelsen så langt her på Wikipedia på Engelsk har vært demotiverende, kan du kanskje prøve deg på Wikipedia på bokmål? F.eks. kunne no:Magnus_V trenge litt forbedring, og der er Knut Helles NBL-artikkel et godt utgangspunkt. Jeg vet ikkje. Men kannske ein dag.

Egentlig burde Magnus 3. her på enwiki vært ryddet skikkelig i, men jeg kjenner meg ikke helt motivert til å ta tak i det. Jeg sysler for tiden mest med irske konger på bokmålswikien. Mvh Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takk, men ikke interesert. Jeg tror at din mening var god, men... .. your intervention led to my leaving as much as the rude anonymous contributor. Revision history and commentary are the start in assessing any wikipedia article, and those with this kind of history are too problematical to be useful. I feel similar contributions would not be a good use of time, especially as scholarly resources are increasingly available online. You, and many others, clearly think differently - so good luck. Mvh Lopthaena (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]