User talk:Gomanazbt

Welcome
Hello, Gomanazbt, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I sent an e-mail to info-en...

The following is the reference listing I am trying to post. Can you help me determine what the issue is with the reference?

It was to be posted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_years_of_Jesus under the “other theories” section:

There is another theory on the “Silent Years of Jesus” that is based on a couple of assumptions. The first, is that the best person to too give an account of His entire life including the silent years, would have been Jesus Himself. He would have had a desire to share experiences but not divulge specifics. He may have assumed that it would have been clear to others at some point or may never be discovered. Second, the theory proposes that Jesus used events from His life in formulating His analogies of the parables in the New Testament. The theory contends that through circumstances beyond His control, Jesus became a bondservant to a very wealthy man before being released from His "debt" and beginning His ministry at age 30.


 * If I saw it I would have asked you to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. If after that you still have questions ask on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Any crank can "publish" anything and get a copyright for their work - that just means that there is a creative aspect to the work and no one can copy the creative aspects covered by copyright without the original publisher's permission.  The article in question is about a collection of WP:FRINGE theories, which have special rules about them. Even in articles about FRINGE theories, the FRINGE theory itself must have been the subject of third party notice to be worthy of including. This particular FRINGE theory appears so far to be simply one guy's take and so not worthy of mention in the article. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Gomanazbt (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Thank you for the Fringe theory link and I understand the concern you have on self promotion. The goal is to solicit feedback on the theory not make money or self promote. I have been a supporter of Wikipedia for many years and considered it an open forum to propose the theory for feedback. Based on other works listed here that have been refuted by other entries, it appears there is a slight double standard. Single person theories have been common in the past and turned out to be proven later. I know there are many "ads" proposed here but I assure you that is not the goal. To refute, the very same could be said for Joseph Smith and Mormonism (talking squirrel told him to write a plagiarized version of the Bible so he could start a religious movement, considered a cult by most Christians, that promoted polygamy and would be protected as religious freedom). However, that "CRANK's" theory is listed on the same page. So if a third party reviewer of the book was to post this as a theory, at what level would that suffice?
 * well, no, Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM nor a place to post original research for feedback critique nor to place a work to gain exposure. it is an encyclopedia where we aggregate what reliably published sources have already found worthy of discussing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Gomanazbt (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC) The "Ministry of Truth" has spoken...