User talk:HexTokis

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Elonka 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Thank you for the welcome. I will try and contribute where possible. My main forte is checking references and ease of writing. I review and edit history books for a living and I cannot bear to see long drawn-out sentences or poor grammar. Also it would be good to see if the friction between you and LK can be resolved. You both seem keen to produce a good article but the current atmosphere will not be conducive to that goal. That comment is aimed at both of you, as it does seem to be a little six of one and half a dozen of the other on intial review. I will try and get up to speed with the more complex parts of references. I have worked out the edit history links fairly easily (squared brackets) but it seems a bit more complex for book references. I will read through the guides. Thanks again for the welcome. HexTokis 20:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference tags
Thanks for your assistance with the Knights Templar article, I noted your edit summary and although the written advice can be confusing - Footnotes (for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the  tags) don't worry too much, if it's not quite right someone will almost invariably fix it.--Alf melmac 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the welcome. I've decided to come in on this as there seems to be some very silly arguments going on. I do know LK through the English history circuit and he is not the kind of person to wind up. This stems from the fact that he does have an awful lot of knowledge on the subject, but sometimes finds it irritating when people appear to trample his work. I remember him at one heritage weekend when he clearly showed that he doesn't suffer fools gladly. I do think that there's obviously been some sort of winding up going on, and they are both at an impasse. Having read the Templars website history (briefly) it does seem a very good source and is very well presented. But I intend to read through it all and try and see what it is that Elona doesn't like. She says on the dicussion that she claims it as not reliable but fails to mention exactly what is not reliable. I will therefore check it all. HexTokis 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi HexTokis, I wanted to followup with a more personal welcome. :)  In terms of referencing, I realize that the Wikipedia system can be somewhat arcane.  If you want, don't worry about formatting, simply use whatever form of referencing that you're most comfortable with.  For example, you could add a simple reference in parentheses: (Barber, page 17), and then someone else will follow along later and re-format it if necessary.  That's the beauty of a collaborative editing enviornment. :)


 * As some background: Right now, the Knights Templar is undergoing rapid expansion, since it's heading for what's called Featured status, which would make it eligible to be bannered as "Today's Featured Article" on the Wikipedia mainpage. My specific goal, and the paperwork that I've been filing, is to have the Knights Templar article up on the mainpage for the date of October 13, 2007, the 700-year anniversary of the arrests. It's not a sure thing though -- there are a lot of political and bureaucratic hoops along the way, and in some ways it's more difficult than getting approval on a doctoral thesis! One of the strictest requirements right now, meaning it's one of the most common reasons that articles get rejected from featured status, is on the subject of referencing. As such, it's essential that any article contain only information that's attributable to a reliable source.  See Attribution.  This is a particularly difficult task with the Knights Templar, considering the vast amount of misinformation that's out on the web, and the public confusion between the medieval order, and the modern ones. However, on the plus side, for those who seek out genuine information, the Templars are a well-documented subject, and there are many solid published works about the Order (such as Barber's books). Because of this wealth of solid literature, it is a requirement that wherever possible, the Knights Templar article cite published Reliable Sources.  Links to websites are to be kept to an absolute minimum.  For more info, see WP:EL. You can also click on "Show" next to "Article milestones" at the top of Talk:Knights Templar, to read other Peer Review comments that have been generated about the article so far.  Maybe you'll see some place where you can help out.  I hope that helps explain, and if you have any questions, let me know!  :) --Elonka 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also replying to HexTokis (just saw this via WP:COI). Thanks for trying to calm things down. I'm afraid the above description of LK does sound like a character sketch of someone who's not going to get on easily with Wikipedia, and many experts run into similar difficulties (such as treating requests for precise verification as a personal affront).


 * On the normal historical journal circuit, credibility is deeply rooted in the authority of who you are personally. Here, authority is based on that of the citations you produce (specifically, reliable third-party published sources as defined in WP:RS). This explains why citation is demanded, rather anyone taking an expert's word for it.


 * It's perhaps non-intuitive, but it's one of many rules designed to enable it to work under a system very different from normal publishing (i.e. with open editorship). It may well be galling for editors who know a lot and whose personal authority can be trusted, but it's necessary because there aren't the mechanisms here for fact-checking and peer review. Tearlach 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say a character sketch, just a VERY intelligent historian who owns a vast private library of some of the very documents that are often quoted in books of this subject. I have worked on the review staff teams of some of the books listed here, including some for CUP. LK knew the exact location in his library when we were given permission to review them. He is a very helpful person but can sometimes get a little defensive when people appear to question something written down in his archive. Unfortunately there is a lot of unpublished work that was awaiting translation and decoding. He has also just completed a thirty-year project to have a large number of personal documents translated which will throw a lot of new angles on Templar history; that work was at his own personal expense. Some of these are very exciting new pieces of evidence that we researchers can only dream of. There are authors already looking to line up new titles to include them. The Matrix rolls are particularly interesting and I am working as the researcher on a new book that will include these. Maybe Wikipedia could have an exclusive! Thank you for the advice on formatting. I will endeavour to try and get it right but it does look like a case of trial and error. HexTokis 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm, appreciate the offer, but no, we wouldn't want a Wikipedia exclusive. It's actually a common misconception about Wikipedia, as to what information can be added here. Some people think that they can use Wikipedia to publish new information, but that is not correct. Wikipedia is only for summarizing information after it's already been published elsewhere.  So, if Lordknowle (or anyone) has new information that they wish to present, Wikipedia isn't the place for it.  It wouldn't matter if Lordknowle had an actual handwritten document by King Baldwin II -- we couldn't use it, because it would be what is referred to as a primary source.  A better route would be for him to publish via a peer-reviewed academic journal of some sort, and then after that paper was published, then we could use it as a source. Wikipedia runs mostly on secondary sources, not primary.  For more info, please see Reliable sources and No original research. --Elonka 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology
HexTokis, I would like to apologize for the "meatpuppet" term that I used in reference to you. At the time that I used it, you had just appeared in the article, and I had not had a chance to observe your behavior. Now that I have, I am convinced that you are indeed a real person, and not just someone acting as an agent for another user. It is my hope that you will forgive me for this faulty assumption on my part, as I would truly like to see you continue contributing to Wikipedia. I think that you have a great deal to add, and that the Knights Templar article (and others) would benefit from your input. Sincerely, Elonka 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your apology at Talk:Knights Templar. Your help would still be appreciated on the article, but because of recent actions, it is currently blocked from editing by newly-created accounts.
 * My best recommendation for you at this time, in order to "prove" yourself, is to spend some time editing other non-Templar articles. From what you've said above about helping out with things historical, it should be quite simple for you to find something else you could help with.  For example, Wikipedia has what is considered a core of vital articles, which would greatly benefit from some solid editorial work (it would be nice if we could get all of them to Featured status someday!). Once you've got a few dozen other non-controversial edits under your belt, the trust level will increase dramatically.  :) I also recommend making a userpage when you have a moment. If you have any questions, let me know, Elonka 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

ID check
Hiya, just to confirm... Someone sent me an email, implying that they were you. Can you please verify here that you did indeed write to me? Perhaps mention the date/time of the email, or something in the letter. Thanks. :) --Elonka 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked this account indefinitely for abusive and extremely disruptive sockpuppetry, impersonation, and harassment, confirmed by checkuser. See User talk:Lordknowle and my talkpage for more details. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)