Actuarialninja
|
An extended welcome edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.
Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Climate change discretionary sanctions notice edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Please keep in mind that this notice is for informational purposes only and does not imply any accusation of wrongdoing on your part. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Shroud of Turin edit
Hi there. This has all been laid out many times before. Please read the argument on the talk page - over the last three weeks or so. Multiple C14 experts and textile experts who have actually examined the shroud have stated emphatically that scrutiny with modern microscopes and photographs show there is zero evidence of a medieval repair, and that a contamination sufficient to swing the dating that far would have required a quantity of contaminant in excess of double the weight of the original fabric. That's hard science, and it's all in the references. Wdford (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. It would help immensely if you dealt with what I actually said, and not try demolishing straw men. When you say “a contamination sufficient to swing the dating that far” (emphasis added), you are already assuming I put some fixed date on the Shroud. I did nothing of the sort. Also, how far back are you talking anyway? (Your comment didn’t say, but your sources seem to converge on refuting the 1st century AD hypothesis, so let’s go with that for now…)
- It may seem like I am needlessly nitpicking, but this is important because for this discussion we are now dealing with two separate hypotheses: I) that the Shroud dates to the 1st century AD, and II) there is the introduction of medieval material in the C14 sample. I myself am only concerned with hypothesis II, and only to show there are credible people arguing both sides (and not argue in favor of one hypothesis over another). For my edit, I am proposing rewording to a statement that is true, promotes a more neutral POV, and is easily supported by the sources. Also, I find such wording as “all hypotheses of X have been scientifically refuted” to be problematic for several reasons (partly because it is an all encompassing statement. I can elaborate if you want, but for now, I want to keep this as brief as possible.)
- Lastly, I did look at the talk page, and am well aware of the arguments made in terms of the amount of contamination necessary and so on (it is the same argument that appears several times in the sources). I also went through the sources supporting your preferred wording. In Dec 2017, you were open to changing the wording to something like "Although three radiocarbon dating tests in 1988 dated a sample of the cloth to the Middle Ages, other factors nonetheless lead some people to believe that this is the actual burial shroud that wrapped Jesus's body after the crucifixion." I think my proposed wording is better than this proposal. Actuarialninja (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Image without license edit
Unspecified source/license for File:Hogan follow thru.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading File:Hogan follow thru.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)