User talk:Harnack
Codex Bezae and the Da Vinci Code[edit]
Hello Harnack. I've removed from the Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail articles your external link to the website authored by Wieland Willker, Codex Bezae and the Da Vinci Code: A textcritical look at the Rennes-le-Chateau hoax, because of the Wikipedia:External links style guideline. Please read the Links normally to be avoided section. --Loremaster (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
3RR warning[edit]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Sources[edit]
Yes, secondary sources are preferred. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. In particular, links to self-published websites may not be used as references. See WP:SOURCES. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"So we are left with..."[edit]
There are two problems with this sort of statement. First, it gives the appearance of being original research on the part of the Wikipedia editor who inserts it. This may be due to the use of "we", which itself is the second problem. An encyclopedia article should not refer to either the writer or the reader, but to a source and what that source says... Wednesday Next (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
In that case everything is possible. Possibly it is a forgery, but very skilfull. Some schollars were fascinated by non-interpolations. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)