User talk:Samjmv003
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Samjmv003, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Census of Quirinius did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Introduction tutorial
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
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 need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
April 2022[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Census of Quirinius appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Census of Quirinius. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Eg when you wrote probably that was apparently your analysis. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I had citations from multiple books by scholars in the field and from published papers. Original Research has "no reliable, published sources" Samjmv003 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- The policy also says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves" In an essay you can use reliable sources to reach a new conclusion not stated in the sources, on Wikipedia you can't. And "probably" in any case looks like OR however you interpret it. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- the sources all clearly state what I said though. Can you show me the place you take problem with? Samjmv003 (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note that you were reverted for a different reason. Again, where do you get "probably" from? Doug Weller talk 15:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I know. Are you referring to where I said "Probably the most popular explanation"? It is because most papers I read on the subject had that explanation but when I researched it there wasn't a paper for the most popular explanation so I couldn't source it. I'll try not to add stuff without sources. Samjmv003 (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I would just like to know why you reverted my edit on Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory? Samjmv003 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- It was because you changed "many theologians and physicists" to "philosophers" despite the source saying "Both theists and physicists have seen the big bang theory as leaving open such an opportunity for a theistic explanation." But my revert didn't properly fix that so I've gone into the article again today and hopefully made it match the source better.
- That of courses doesn't explain the fact that my revert deleted other changes. But that error gave me concerns that perhaps your other changes weren't backed by the sources. You need to make such changes incrementally with each one having an edit summary showing how it matches the source. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I would just like to know why you reverted my edit on Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory? Samjmv003 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I know. Are you referring to where I said "Probably the most popular explanation"? It is because most papers I read on the subject had that explanation but when I researched it there wasn't a paper for the most popular explanation so I couldn't source it. I'll try not to add stuff without sources. Samjmv003 (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note that you were reverted for a different reason. Again, where do you get "probably" from? Doug Weller talk 15:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- the sources all clearly state what I said though. Can you show me the place you take problem with? Samjmv003 (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- The policy also says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves" In an essay you can use reliable sources to reach a new conclusion not stated in the sources, on Wikipedia you can't. And "probably" in any case looks like OR however you interpret it. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)