User talk:Anthroponlogy

Welcome!

Hello, Anthroponlogy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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 {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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!--Biografer (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

BC/BCE

I noticed your recent edit to The Exodus. You should know that we have a policy here at Wikipedia known as MOS:ERA, which says that articles may be created using either the BC/AD convention, or the BCE/CE convention. However, once an article begins using either convention, an editor should not change it without seeking consensus on the talk page first. Alephb (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Both dating systems were used in the article, it was following both conventions. I fixed this by converting all dating to one of the conventions, as suited the nature of the article. Anthroponyology

September 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in The Exodus, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please abide by the rules at MOS:ERA which do not allow users to make unilateral changes from BC-->BCE or vice versa without first discussing it on the talk page. You have now made two edits that violate MOS:ERA. Alephb (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not possible, as I made the article more uniform, not less. It used two systems before, so I converted them all to the more suitable system of dating for its content. I appologize for not discussing the change beforehand, I assumed the fact I was making it more uniform made it fitting with the guidelines.Anthroponlogy (talk)

No, the vast majority of era styles were BCE - making it uniform within the guidelines would mean you'd change the BCs to BCE. And if you'd looked a week back, they were all BCE. What you did was against the guidelines, you should have made the BC to BCE change as it's established as a BCE article. Why you think an article on possibly the most important event in the Torah should use Christian nomenclature is beyond my understanding. I also presume you don't know that some Christian theologians use BCE. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed this addition along with some other edits I reverted (as mentioned above).

Counter-Arguments

A counter-point to this argument may be found in the book and documentary video "Patterns of Evidence", which argue for an alternative time line that would result in the accounts of the Exodus corresponding to archaeological finds. While this position is dismissed by many without giving it consideration, the research does seem to be convincing. --- I've left the text above, which you might want to raise on the talk page, where fellow editors will consider it from the point of view of the wp:v wp:due policies, which apply to this kind of addition to the article. Many thanks for the time you devoted to the encyclopedia project and welcome. Edaham (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

References

I would assume that the point-of view policies would concern themselves with the presentation of actual evidence, rather than merely repeating whatever baseless speculation is popular at the time. The research listed in my additions is well prepared and referenced, and shows the work of several recognized experts in Egyptology. This is much more than can be said for much of what is already in the article, which, in some cases, appears to be deliberately misrepresenting actual archaeological finds.Anthroponlogy (talk)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF. It is a matter of basic etiquette here not to make unfounded accusations that other editors are deliberately misrepresenting things -- that's an accusation about motives that you couldn't possibly have evidence for at this early point in your editing career. Alephb (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I was just doing copy edit, while trying not to change the overall intent of any writer's wording. Your edits weren't reverted because I disagree with them, but because you did several things which warranted a reversion making it necessary to revert the entire edit, namely 1) you didn't leave any summary in your initial edit. 2) you introduced a number of weasel words into the article, using wording advised against by Wikipedia's manual of style and 3)you changed the date format, which usually requires talk page consensus, as conventions for that would have been reached some time ago. I don't know enough about the exodus to verify whether or not the section you included is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but reading about reliable sources on wikipedia and verifiable information will help you self-determine this. also if the source represents the work of a notable researcher whose work contradicts mainstream research, reading about fringe sources and due weight given to sources will further help you determine whether or not the source belongs in the encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Fringe

It might be worth reviewing the policy WP:FRINGE before making any more edits to The Exodus. Writing your personal opinion that a documentary "does seem convincing" is outside the bounds of regularly accepted Wikipedia article writing norms. Alephb (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Your recent editing history at The Exodus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)