User talk:Wheres Dan

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Wheres Dan! Thank you for your contributions. I am Brookie and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

$Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...)$ 09:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Wheres Dan (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denyen

Your additions to this article have serious problems. You apply qualifiers like "it is said" to the dubious statements, but if reliable sources don't support an idea, giving it space in the article is undue weight. Some of your statements have reliable sources but are worded in such a way that they appear to support a more dubious notion. For instance, the sentence "Archaeologists have described [the Denyen] as being of Indo origin" is obviously supposed to imply that the Denyen had a connection with India—but in fact, the authors said "Indo-European", a far broader group. And just because there's a legendary figure named Denyan in Russia doesn't mean he has anything to do with the Denyens of the Mediterranean. The article should not even imply that he does until a truly reliable source says there is. I am removing the least credible portions from the article. A. Parrot (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Denyens' history in Eastern Mediterranean is said to have been lost. This explains the lack of knowledge of them. Searching through digital literature they are found consistently. What is added is supported by antiquitical sources, archeologists, and historians.

They recently discovered an Indo-European settlement in Russia 3000-4000 years old. It is in the Southern and Eastern Russian region where the Mordvin, said to have absorbed Aryan tradition who sing about the Denyan moon God, were and are located. It is quite possible this Indo-European group branched off with some heading NorthWest, others due West. If they were known to travel by water, they could have made it to Scandinavia as believed via Russia from India instead, as being suggested, to have come up from the Mediterranean. They could have had an extensive global trade network stretching from India to Arabia and India to Scandinavia which at some point in history became connected around Europe. But that is unsourced and only theory lacking archeological evidence. It's not like it is being claimed Ramadan is derived from Rama and the Denyen.

This is the tough aspect of antiquity with so much being lost. At least it appears the group was able to remain identified through the use of their tribe's name. Remember the logic in archeological.

Wheres Dan (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use 'logic' in editing articles, please see WP:NOR. Nor do we use self-published books or Sunday School magazines (see WP:RS. If you are going to cite a journal we need the name of the article, authors, etc, not just 'Mediterranean Archaeology' which I presume you found with a Google search - and as if I'm right and you did, what you see in a snipped without having read the context can be misleading. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted antiquitical sources. Nice logic. It seems the genesis of Langley probably believes rainbows are forever and water flows before a heat source like the sunday school mentality and mythology their mind is of.

Wheres Dan (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wheres Dan, you will not be allowed to make any more additions unless they are cited by modern academic authors. Everyone agrees with me.--Tataryn77 (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There goes 8erodotus.

Wheres Dan (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Please read MOS:DATE. The articles you've been editing are about American subjects, so should use the American format, as specified, October 16, 2011. 16 October 2011 would be the international format, and "16 october 2011" would not be an acceptable format at all. I seem to remember it being used in Polish references, but I'm not sure about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kristallnacht, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RSN

See WP:RSN#Bible geography for schools. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Tribe of Dan. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Your edit summary here was clearly a personal attack. Wikipedia:Vandalism says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what does Beta Israel have to do with the characteristics of the Tribe of Dan? Yet all the vandalized edits reverting what has been made leaves it under characteristics and not under the fate section where it belongs. Prince Bukki has been sourced by other wikipedia pages, yet is removed. The priestly breastplate has been sourced by other wikipedia pages, but is removed. Dan's son Hashim has been sourced by other wikipedia pages, yet is removed. The Portuguese sketch has been sourced by other wikipedia pages, but is removed. The conquest of Laish has been sourced by other wikipedia pages, yet is removed. This is just the tip of the vandalism occurring. This is vandalism of the highest order compromising the integrity of wikipedia.

Wheres Dan (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why you need to quit using outdated sectarian sources

WP:RS says:

-"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -"Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available..."

WP:NPOV says that calls for "reputable books and journal articles" as the best way to achieve neutrality.
WP:FRINGE says "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

I see you bring up Herodotus as an example of an ancient source which should be allowed. Herodotus is not a reliable source, but his works are period documents which modern historians may examine, because that's not Wikipedia's job but their's. Stick with modern sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is outdated until refuted, discredited; proved otherwise. You're just an ankle biter nitpicking. Find modern sources to refute the sources being used. You're not a source.

Wheres Dan (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any current sources which support the material you're using? If not, that's a sign that the material is no longer accepted. Also:

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Tribe of Reuben. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. As previously explained by Dougweller, calling good-faith edits vandalism is considered a personal attack and is not acceptable. This has already been explained to you. Continue to refer to such edits as vandalism and you will be seen as an uncooperative liar. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Tribe of Dan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. See WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained above in the response to Weller how these edits are acts of vandalism. Signs are not acceptable wikipedia protocols to deny credibly-sourced material according to guidelines.

Wheres Dan (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAN clearly states that vandalism is the DELIBERATE attempt to compromise the encyclopedia's integrity. Doug and I are trying to maintain it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How? Because you don't like something that has to do with the Bible and relatedly sourced? This is about a Biblical topic, and much of the history derives not from the religion of the book, but the history. The only deliberate attempt to compromise Wiki's integrity is the destruction of contributions which are credibly sourced and add to the overall desirable constructions of articles.

Wheres Dan (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're never going to learn to assume good faith with other users you should just leave. Don't bother playing the religion card, I'm a devout Baptist. Other users are trying to make sure this site uses high quality sources that represent the latest understanding of the scholarly community instead of outdated sectarian ones which cover a minority view. Have you noticed that no other editor is supporting you in this? And once again...

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Tribe of Dan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Quit calling other good faith edits vandalism. None of the reverts have been to damage the encyclopedia, even if you don't agree with the content of the edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tribe of Reuben shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why your patron met the fate he did. That's fine, let's turn backpage Wiki into the credible part of it.

Wheres Dan (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this wasn't another personal attack, then it's close enough to be very inappropriate as a reponse to a warning against personal attacks. Maybe you realise that Wikipedia isn't your thing and are trying to get banned as fast as possible? Hans Adler 08:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Tribe of Dan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Not believing the Tribe of Dan reached the Americas hardly makes me an anti-Semite. I asked you to stop the name-calling, but you are just getting worse. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked (November 18th, 2011)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for personal attacks, in particular calling another editor an "anti-semite", as you did at Talk:Tribe_of_Dan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, this edit is completely unacceptable under WP:NPA. I was very much tempted of making the block indefinite, and unblock conditional on an official retraction. Other admins may be less reluctant to do so in the future. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serpent Mound

This Native American archaeological site has ZERO to do with ancient egyptians, irannians, japaneese, mesopotamians or isrealites. Insert any information that implies this in any way and it will be removed. Any source that states that this site is connected to those things is WP:FRINGE and not WP:RELIABLE. WP:EDITWAR over this, and I will take you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. He iro 02:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said the Native Americans weren't from the Middle East and Far East? All DNA points to their haplogroups originating there.

Wheres Dan (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will not find one reliable source that states that or anything like it. Nor will you find any reliable source that backs up any connection of Native American sites and ancient Egypt, Iran, Japan, Israel, etc. Insert this nonsense into ANY Native American archaeology article, and I will consider it disruptive editing and take appropriate action. Consider this a final and only warning on the manner. He iro 03:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Uncooperative editor has serious problems with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Type H Sword for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Type H Sword is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Type H Sword until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 1 week from editing for edit warring, as you did at Tribe of Dan, as well as numerous other edits which bring into doubt your WP:COMPETENCE to edit here, as is currently being discussed at WP:ANI. If you would like any comments of yours to be copied over to the WP:ANI discussion, please leave them below with the template {{adminhelp}}. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Black Kite (t) 19:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wheres Dan. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban discussion

Wheres Dan, I don't know if you are aware, but for six days now, there has been a discussion proposing to community ban you from Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ban proposal. I am so sorry if you didn't already know; it's supposed to be customary to notify users of ban discussions concerning them. (Note: I have not participated in the discussion, nor do I have an opinion as to whether or not you should be banned; I am only acting in the messenger's role.) --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 03:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The community ban discussion was a continuation of the ANI discussion which he has been notified of. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. causa sui (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]