User talk:71.198.146.98

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Luba Goy has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. N o f o rmation Talk  02:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edits to Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edits had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished synthesis of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. Where matters of controversy or analysis of creative works are concerned, the source must not merely contain the material you add to the article, but must give that material in explicit reference to the creative work in question. In other words, a reliable source that explains why the novel is inaccurate in some respect is acceptable; a source that merely contains the information you wish to contrast with the novel's content, but which does not make any mention of that work, is not. Employing a source in the latter fashion is synthesis, which is a form of original research. If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * When adding material to a Wikipedia article, please do not rely on other Wikipedia articles as sources, as you did with [when adding material to a given Wikipedia article these edits to Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code], as this violates WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SYNTH. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of Jesus' Wife
This section mentions the ink matching that of an existing forgery, but the indicated they were different from those used in the Gospel of John (despite speculation that they might be the same). The linked citation is also to a paywalled opinion article, which is unfortunate on both counts.

The lack of reed pen, and what appear to be copies of improper text from the Gospel of Thomas are some evidence that it may be a hoax, as is the provenance described in

This looks like a possible NPOV issue.