User talk:Ckolavalli

Dwarka

This is a good topic for revision. However, now that I look at the entries, I'm wondering whether the main entry you should be working on is the one called Marine archaeology in the Gulf of Cambay rather than Dwarka. Please let me know if you have trouble deciding. Hoopes (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - i'll work on that one. thanks!

Marine archaeology in the Gulf of Cambay

I see you're having some disagreements with a Wikipedia editor over some specific statements. I've created a section on his talk page for discussing this. I'll have a look and see if I have any specific recommendations. Hoopes (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand correctly, one of the disagreement is over "the validity of dating methods used" while another is the claim that "prominent archeologists reject this claim, as it would indicate that civilization existed in India by 7500 B.C., which is 5,000 years earlier than the accepted date of civilization in India." You need to be very cautious and precise about the language that you use in Wikipedia. On the first issue, there is an important difference between the "validity of dating methods" and the validity of the actual dates. A dating method can be perfectly valid but yield problematic dates. It can also yield correct dates that are used in an incorrect way. It's essential to be clear. On the second issue, professional archaeologists would probably never reject a conclusion just because it suggests that something may be earlier or later than an "accepted date". They might question a conclusion, but its rejection is almost always based on flawed data or flawed conclusions. That is, the problem is with the specific data or the logic but not with the fact that something flies in the face of "accepted" knowledge. Accepted knowledge is rejected all the time when the data and arguments are strong. Hoopes (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic issue is that it sounds as if the reason why there is disagreement is because of bias on the part of the critics rather than critiques of possible bias in the data and interpretations. Hoopes (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. I was trying to convey that the dates are questioned because they don't fit at all into what we know about dates of civilization in India, but they are generally rejected because of a lack of eye-witness research, and the difficulty of definitively associating those dates with the site. I'll try and find a more accurate way of saying that. Ckolavalli (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Paul to get in touch with you, he knows quite a bit about this. I note you've just added 'lab' to the article - you really shouldn't use shortened forms or abbreviations please. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're getting frustrated with the methodology for adding to the existing article, you might want to try setting up a dedicated user subpage for the modifications you're making and then save the link on your main userpage. You would do this by creating a name consisting of a backslash followed by the proposed article title (or "Draft" or any text). It should be coded like this: [[/Article title]]. Click on that link to create the new subpage, which will be created at User:Student username/Article title continue by clicking on that link. You can then transclude your working draft subpage onto your main userpage so it's visible from there by adding User:Student username/Article title to the main userpage somewhere. (This is a neater way to organize your User page.) Hoopes (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can script your new content in draft form on your User page and then, after you're done working on the sections here, you can either copy-and-paste or merge them within the existing entry. This can be less frustrating than attempting to edit the main entry before you've had practice in creating Wikipedia content. If you want to get feedback, you can work on the text and then request feedback on the draft rather than working with the main article. You may want to consider writing or rewriting specific subsections that could be edited here and then be added to the main article, rather than trying to edit bits and pieces of it while making mistakes. Hoopes (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds easier. I'll start working on it that way..thanks Ckolavalli (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Abel Caudill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sociocultural anthropology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]