User talk:Sandmadd

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sandmadd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Ivan van Sertima 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, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Frmatt (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Truth777333 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)) Ivan Van Sertima[reply]

We share a similar view regarding teh diting of Ivan Van Sertima's page and I was wodnering if you could have a look at the recent talk page and provide your views on reaching a compromise.Thanks (Truth777333 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Answer to your question

Hi Sandmadd,

To answer your question, I removed it for three reasons. The first (which I cited) was because the letter that you printed was from the subject of the page himself. Wikipedia doesn't allow people to edit pages about themselves in order to maintain a neutral point of view as befits an encyclopedic article, instead of a personal webpage. Secondly, reprinting a letter that was published somewhere else is a direct violation of the Copyright of the original publishing organization. If you wanted to put a section in about support for Mr. van Sertima's theories from other researchers (possibly with the title "Academic response to Criticism") and write about the response in your own words, then that would be acceptable. Just make sure that you use reliable third-party sources, reference it properly, and make sure that the end result is suitable for an encyclopedia. Thanks for wanting to make WP a better source! Happy Editing! Oh, and any other questions, feel free to ask! Frmatt (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Van Sertima page re: Notes (Clarence Weiant)

My deletion of extraneous information about Clarence Weiant in the Notes section was reversed. The reason given was that the Note was "relevant to his comment on archaeology". However, there is nothing in the Notes section or anywhere else on this page about context for Glyn Daniel. Glyn Daniel lacks the background for criticizing Van Sertima. Specifically, Glyn Daniel never published in the field of MesoAmerican history. Neither did he conduct original research/archeological digs in Mesoamerica as did Clarence Weiant. Yet, Clarence Weiant is the only critic disparaged on Van Sertima's page- a violation of Wikipedia's pillars. All sources cited on this page should be treated equally.

Wikipedia is not a Forum

Dear user some good advise from an Africanist, Please read WP:FORUM. While you may feel passionate about the topic you are discussing Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of engagement. It is actually a waste of your energy you will not persuade nothing this way. Spend time editing articles and making them better and more balanced. Spend time looking for RS sources which make what ever points you feel are missing. --Inayity (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]