User talk:Guardianofhistory

Welcome
 Hello Guardianofhistory, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at theNew contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
 * Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Guardianofhistory, good luck, and have fun. --Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Gospel, Hadrian, and Hadrian's Wall. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At the bottom of the site you keep linking, History Hungers International, is the text "Powered by WordPress & the Atahualpa Theme by BytesForAll." - It is a personal blog by some random guy who doesn't even properly identify himself, with user generated content. There is no evidence of editorial oversight nor any credentials, they do not meet the site's guidelines, do not use that site anymore. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Almagest, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place unblock on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Our external link and reference guidelines (which you've had plenty of opportunity to look over) state that self-published (i.e. any monkey with a keyboard) sources like blogs are generally not to be used because any crackpot can put any misinformation they want on there, and there is no oversight from editors and fact-checkers and no accountability for making mistakes. The blog you promoted has absolutely no evidence of credentials.  As far as we know, it's just some basement dweller claiming to be a university professor.  If they actually are professors, they should have no reason to remain anonymous if their work is actually credible.  Receiving only favorable responses to articles means nothing because wordpress blog owners are allowed to block unfavorable comments, and people that would likely have a negative reaction probably wouldn't bother with the blog for long.
 * It isn't a matter of disagreeing with the blog's content (the article Christ myth theory is doing pretty well), but questioning the source of that content, and disagreeing with representing that content as accepted scholarly work.
 * Also, "We?" You're affiliated with that blog?  Congrats, you have a conflict of interest, which isn't going to help your case. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I can certainly understand your kindred reference to a basement dweller with a keyboard. User:Guardianofhistory


 * We don't link to forums either, but I will note that it is tiny, with only 28 members, and the website itself doesn't even have an Alexa ranking. It's pretty obvious you are trying to promote the website. And to compare it with a website which is "A publication of the Archaeological Institute of America" is sheer chutzpah. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to promote the website, I am providing links to relevant source information. The Wiki page has a placeholder for External References. You are taking the comment out of context, which was made in reference to the use of WordPress as a site engine. I simply referenced another WordPress site, of which, if you were to check, there are over 31 million sites powered by WordPress. If you did some fact checking, you would note the Alexa rankings, Archaeology.org UK 55,8K, Historyhunters 21.5K, and we are not far behing in worldwide rankings.Guardianofhistory


 * Also, if the authors of the material "wish to remain anonymous" then we have no way of knowing who they are, so the source of the material is unverifiable. As far as we can tell it may be as unreliable a source as Wikipedia, and the fact that some anonymous person comes here and tells us it is by reputable authors does not prove otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The source of the material is completely referenced and cited. Guardianofhistory