User talk:HM777

Welcome!

Hello, HM777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

A summary of guidelines you may find useful

 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, using, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

These guidelines are why your addition to Zecharia Sitchin was removed. Wikipedia is not your blog.

In response to your post, uncredentialed figures who excelled in fields provided evidence and hewed to the scientific method. Most scholars find problems with Sitchen's lack of either, as the article explains. Not once is it mentioned that critics have supposedly gone after him for not having credentials, as you claimed. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)