User talk:KendallKDown

Welcome


Hello KendallKDown, 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 the New 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


 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

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]] 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.

Dougweller Good luck, and have fun.

Petra
The Rekem addition could be interesting but without a WP:FOOT from a WP:RELY source, how can anyone assess its quality? We cannot figure out if an editor copied this from a bad source and is actually misinformation. We would like to avoid that. Please help by supplying a citation. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ken, I've given you a welcome message about with lots of links. Please especially read the links Student7 mentions above. Personal comments really should not be in articles, and you and I are not reliable sources unless we have published what we are using for the source (and then we shouldn't use it probably because of conflict of interest, but post it to the article talk page for someone else to use). Your edits just a few minutes ago really need reworking in this light. dougweller (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

David Kyrle Down
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to David Kyrle Down, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. —Paul A (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research
Sorry but I've had to remove your comments at Behistun inscription. Have you read WP:OR yet? Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (and I hope this is the way to reply!) I have read the WP:OR and it seems to me that the photographs I posted are original sources; the conclusions drawn from them are - well, I don't know what you would call them! However please note that there is no reference given for the assertion I dispute, namely, that access is difficult and was deliberately made so. KendallKDown (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS as well. You really need to remove that edit. Basically you have two choices. Put a fact tag on the assertion - which a bot will come along and date, and wait a month or two, or delete it outright. Ideally editors should look for sources before they add fact tags. In your case, I guess you could do the 2nd, which is just remove the assertion entirely - you could put a comment in the edit summary explaining why. But your footnote is original research. We had a pilot once asking if he could use his personal experience in the same way you are, he was told definitely not. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have rewritten the footnote, removing all personal references and referring only to the photographs. Does that make it acceptable? I still find it strange that a wrong assertion - without reference - can be accepted but my contrary assertion is not, *because* it doesn't have a reference! KendallKDown (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

=
==

Hmmmm. I've been thinking about this "original research" thing. My understanding was that Wikipedia was set up so that ordinary people could contribute knowledge from their own area of expertise. The "original research" rule means that ordinary people are only allowed to contribute if they can quote someone else talking about that other person's area of expertise.

I appreciate that Wikipedia wants to ensure accuracy and high standards, but it seems to me that this rule is directly contrary to the purpose and ethos of the original Wikipedia. If the pilot referred to by Doug Weller had some knowledge which no one else had, surely that is important? The only questions should be, is he telling the truth? Can he provide evidence in support of whatever it was that he knew? Anyone want to comment? KendallKDown (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Your AfC Submission
Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia& was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! --Slon02 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia&. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you.  Chzz  ► 12:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia& was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

David Kyrle Down
The above article is being improved to a higher quality and you are invited to help increase the WP:V and neutrality of the sources. You will notice that most of the article has been cut, due to the lack of referencing on the interview information. If you could provide a source to an outside website/book that contains these interviews, that would be great so they can be used to reinstate the content of the article.-- Gniniv (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Response regarding David Kyrle Down
I wish I had seen this before the article was deleted. As one contributor to the discussion noted, David Down is fairly well known in archaeological circles in Australia, his magazine is extremely popular with the general public as well as academic institutions (high schools and universities stock it in their libraries) and has a growing number of contributors from among professional archaeologists in Australia. I fear that in the discussion I detected a degree of bias, based on a lack of knowledge about the field of archaeology (at least as it relates to Australia) and also possibly a bit of anti-Christian bias.

Regrettably, I do not have a copy of the article, otherwise I would re-submit it, addressing the point you raised about references.

Thank you for the invitation to Young Earth Creationism, but I fear that I have no expertise in that field. If you have any archaeology related material ... KendallKDown (talk)

Nomination of David Kyrle Down for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article David Kyrle Down, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/David Kyrle Down until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Finlay Munro concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Finlay Munro, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Finlay Munro


Hello KendallKDown. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Finlay Munro.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)