User talk:Jensketch

February 2013
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea if this is the appropriate way to communicate back with you as this method of communication seems ancient and ridiculous and not at all intuitive, however, I think you need to read your guidelines as you did not even identify yourself, you just have an IP address.

I didn't realize I needed to give a reason for removing incorrect information from a wikipage. It's wrong - it shouldn't be there and I removed it.


 * A better explanation will be required than claiming the information is wrong, especially if the content appears to be supported by reliable sources. In such instances the removal of content will appear to be disruptive. The best suggestion is to discuss proposed changes at the article's talk page. And there's no need to identify with a registered username. Thanks, 99.156.66.72 (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with all the points above. Also, when you edit you should use WP:Edit summaries. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS carefully. Are the sources you removed reliable by our criteria? Do they represent all significant points of view (see WP:NPOV? Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because something is in a book, does not mean it's accurate. If that were the criteria of being able to add something to wikipedia, all kinds of ridiculous untrue "facts" could be added.

No wonder why there is such a skepticism among academics to using this site. I quite understand now. As long as you just toss up a "citation" from anything published, it's deemed "accurate" and is left on the page and cannot be removed, even if found wrong. That's pretty atrocious and hidebound.

The point of being able to edit a wikipedia page is to keep it accurate and more importantly, *up to date.*   I was doing that.

It's been found that the Romans were just propagandizing all their information about the Celts. A handful of Roman generals who were trying to systematically take over the Celtic lands were putting out disinformation to bolster their campaigns. There has been *no* archaeological evidence found to back up any of the claims the Romans have made. Not a shred of it. This is recent (read: 20 years) work by the archaeological community but that does not mean it should not be allowed in a wikipedia page and the subsequent disproven theories removed.


 * Actually, there is far greater reason for skepticism about content when it's added, or removed, without the support of any source whatsoever. If the recent findings you refer to have been published by the archaeological community, in reliable sources, then feel free to provide those references. Wikipedia welcomes relevant and reliable scholarship. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

In reliable sources? Why bother? You're touting Julius Caesar as "reliable" simply because it's old. Why does it matter? I could make something up in a citation and no one would be the wiser. This whole conversation is ridiculous. It's sad, too, because Wikipedia is so popular - but when it totally doesn't matter where your citations come from, as long as there are citations, the information is incredulous.


 * I'm touting nothing. What's a head-scratcher is why someone who apparently has familiarity with a subject, and with a specific academic community, would refer to recent scholarship yet essentially refuse to provide supporting references. A look at one article's recent history suggests that the issue was broached previously, but in an unencyclopedic manner (with heavy editorializing), and removed . Which is a shame--the source appeared to be good, and all that's needed is a page reference--preferably with an online link so that anyone can view the supporting material--and removal of accompanying unsourced opinion, so that updated findings can be added to the article's content. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done so here . 99.156.66.72 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Fairy, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Legion fi (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

-reply to above: excuse me, but you are clearly uneducated with regards to the edit, I gave sources and explanation. Do a little more reading so you're accurately informed with the current knowledge and information available now. I will continue to edit, and provide the sources (as I did before) and you will just have to learn to recognize current information when it's provided.jensketch

July 2022
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ancient Celtic religion, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. ''In some places, you altered sourced content to write the opposite of what the source says. This is deceptive, disruptive editing. Do not do this. Use honest and accurate edit summaries, and seek consensus with editors in good standing on the article talk page.'' - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Revert it back, as what is there is *actually wrong* and lies. I made the edit so wikipedia has the facts, and gave the reference (which is current academic thought on the matter) in the edit. Jensketch (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Take it to the article's talk page - propose your changes, gain consensus, then make the edit. Also be careful about how you use the word 'lies', which implies deliberate falsehood, and can be interpreted as a personal attack. Girth Summit  (blether)  22:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying Corbie was lying?!???!?
 * It's exhausting to sit here and know the facts about a topic and try and fix what is incorrect and have to deal with random attacks from other users. Jensketch (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just advising you to be careful in how you use words like that. Make your arguments at the talk page, and base them on what sources say, not on what you know - this is the Internet, you could be anyone, we rely on sources. Girth Summit  (blether)  22:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did use the sources, I can use more than Ronald Hutton -- but, if you knew or were familiar with his work, using him is more than adequate, as he is rigorous more than almost any other academic publishing toady. Read the works as I have done, and there would be no attempt at this bullying.
 * The information I removed is incorrect and *old* understood thought. I was simply trying to bring wikipedia up to speed. Jensketch (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For a start you should assemble a better academically-referenced case for the stories not being true, and add that to the existing text. This trope is too well-known to just be removed and passed over. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod@Girth Summit@CorbieVreccan and see this edit to Heptarchy where they removed Petty kingdoms with the edit summary "You cannot just decide to make up a word and/or continue to use a *made up* word to describe something just because you decide it is so. This is why people detest wikipedia as a source. There is NO SOURCE calling the early Kingdoms of pre-unification England "petty kingdoms" other than this original author of the page making it up" Absolutely inexcusable. I've restored it with sources. Is this editor competent enough to edit? They don't seem willing to follow our policies and guidelines. Let alone their personal attacks.  Doug Weller  talk 13:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And an earlier similar edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petty_kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=877426043] to Petty kingdom with the edit summary "here is no source for calling any of the Kingdoms in England prior to the "unification" petty. It's a made up term and a made up word for something people don't understand" Doug Weller  talk 13:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. There are actually fairly few edits - a screensworth in almost 10 years, but many are combative in the edit summaries, & just remove stuff. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did leave it in, explaining that there was no evidence for it (because there isn't) and not only that but Caesar's "writings" are not contemporary accounts (they were possibly even just wholly made up, the only 'copies' of the supposed writings are a 9th century account from a historian called Nennius. It amounts to a few pages in all. Academics now realize how they cannot be considered as fact any longer and I was merely trying to correct this assertion in wikipedia, so wikipedia doesn't look so antiquated and has current academic thought. Jensketch (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All ancient secular writings came down to us in a handful of manuscripts - Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico actually has more than most works. No "academic publishing toady" (good phrase) doubts Caesar published the text we have. You are getting confused here - Nennius probably wrote the Historia Brittonum. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not confused. Like I said, simply read the volumes I have.  All published within the last 20 years - so, current.  I'm just repeating myself.  I am really sorry you aren't familiar with Ronald Hutton or any of his works, you're missing a vast gap of knowledge.
 * Perhaps you don't understand what a contemporary account is. It means written down at the time of the observations being made.  Caesar's are *not* contemporary, no matter how much Nennius' claims it is.  The only copies we have of them are from the 9th century, hence, by their very nature, not contemporary.  Alas, current academic thought (read; the last 20-25 years, it moves slowly, mores the pity) is not relying on anything but contemporary accounts anymore. Jensketch (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly familiar with Hutton and his exciting hairstyle, thanks! He often pops up on British tv interviewing vampires, druids & the like. You are out of your depth here, I'm afraid, and not helping your case. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You're making fun of his hairstyle and talking about his TV appearance without having read a shred of his academic work and you're trying to claim I am out of my depth? Oh dear. Jensketch (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ronald Hutton is a participant-observer in, and an adherent of, a number of the groups he writes about (and yes, does Television appearances to discuss). His work is not universally accepted or respected, for a variety of factors. Like many who write and opine for both academic and pop culture outlets, the reliability of his output varies quite a bit, and in some cases does not really meet WP:RS criteria. Replacing a handful of solid sources with just his opinion on a matter is certainly not acceptable and is why I, and other editors in good standing, have now repeatedly reverted you. Stop with the attitude, and stop insulting/attacking editors who clearly know Hutton's work, and the field, better than you do. I'm sorry if this seems harsh but if you don't learn to listen, use better sources, and collaborate respectfully with knowledgeable Wikipedians, you are going to lose your right to edit here. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)