User talk:GuitarDudeness

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, GuitarDudeness! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Marek. 69  talk  14:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Image tagging for File:Cronium Mare (Argonautica Map 1697).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cronium Mare (Argonautica Map 1697).jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Herodotus' dating
Hello GuitarDudeness. Your use of Herodotus as a primary source for the earliest dates of various Greek cults is fine and welcome. In my personal opinion (for whatever that's worth) his estimate for Dionysus' birth or life seem an excellent match for Dionysus' earliest Mycenaean cults. Alas, we can't use our own estimates of relevance, importance or significance, and we can't offer our own observations and insights by comparing ancient and modern estimates, because that's original research (und verboten). I have to say, it seems very unlikely that no reliable scholarly sources have made this connection. If you can find any that do, please add them in support of your material. If you've any queries on this, please ask at my talk-page, or here. Best wishes, Haploidavey (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS
Please stop inserting etymological and historical information based on unreliable sources such as theoi.com, Wiktionary, Donnelly (1882). This kind of editing is disruptive. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You think too much of yourself. So many statements here on wikipedia with the famous [reference/citation needed], ever though of deleting those as well? How many references there are to the theoi.com that you let slip? Suddenly decided to pick on my statements based on their information? (Some of which I even confirmed with scholars, btw) You want statements that are actually published do you not? If Ignatius D. made a statement and I quoted it, what business is it of yours, who gives you the authority even, to remove that comment, even if it is there for pure comparison? Why don't you instead contribute with references, or even correct my English (even you think so poorly of it)? How about doing some actual work instead of just hitting the 'undo' button? --GuitarDudeness (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2013 (GTM)


 * You obviously take it too personally. I am only trying to improve articles I had been editing since 2008. Actually, I almost never add 'citation needed' tags; I either clean up the mess (as I did here) or I delete text that is dubious/unsourced and hence non-salvageable (as I did here and here; mind that some of your additions consist in misrepresenting what sources actually say). What is not constructive is your refusal to adequately justify your edits. I will have to repeat that inserting etymological information that is based on obsolete 19th-century dictionaries or contemporary self-published sources is simply substandard. Neither one can rely on personal communication with scholars. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth (WP:V). --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, the classic "other crap exists" argument is a poor argument. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You have your vision and I shall keep having mine. As to the Dictionary by Bailly, all I read is that it is a work of reference. The edition I have in my possession is the 26th that has been updated until 1963, how much more obsolete is that than much of the bibliography used in these subjects? As for verifiability, you can check the arguments in the sources I mention, which are all official publications. Do not also forget that "Editors (...) may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." (WP:V) If you insist in your method of simply deleting arguments that are referenced from main authors, with no counter proposal, or no official justification as to why those authors are unreliable, I will continue to revert them. --GuitarDudeness (talk) 10:16, 01 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am afraid we are not talking about different visions: (1) I do not disagree with what sources say. Based on policy, I disagree with what you think a reliable source is. This is why I lauded Til Eulenspiegel's edit, while I reverted your insertion of original research. "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" (WP:V). (2) This is not the first time that someone notices your insertion of original research into articles about ancient Greece:, , . Repeated defiance of policy is indeed disruptive. Regarding Hades, I will soon discuss the content issues at the relevant talk page. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is all fine and I do not disagree. What you have not yet shown me is proof that the 26th revision of Bailly's Dictionary is unreliable as you so claim. So far I have corrected my arguments in my edits into simply quoting the authors opinion with explicit references. Thus I do not see any reason for you to revert my edits. And if you are calling other editors' remarks on my edits you will surely notice the difference in treatment and cooperation. --GuitarDudeness (talk) 22:02, 05 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just edited the article to include information that was unjustifiably removed. I also corrected some grammar errors. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. Thank you for the cooperation. GuitarDudeness (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zeus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pausanias. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aurunci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhotacism ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Aurunci check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Aurunci?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Wisdom teeth
I reverted your edit per WP:NOR. Please provide a reliable source for additional interpretations like that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)