User talk:MjolnirPants/sandbox 3

I started making some small changes to this. I also put some commentary in bold and some below. I'm working my way down rather than reading the whole thing and commenting. So I may reverse myself if things become clearer as I read more of what you have.

Questions:

1.espousing views which are ideologically opposed to the principles of Wikipedia:  I think you must mean this:  *Refers to the argument--which is well established in the literature as valid--as "a blatant fallacy for the intellectually listless". (Note that appealing to authorities is the very principle upon which we weigh information for inclusion in the project.)   I was skeptical of the claim but I think it will be viable...

2. Re Claimed that Matt Easton is "a published historian and archeologist". There is no mention of Matt Easton in the diff.

I'll have to get back to this. I see there is another mention of Matt Easton under FL or Atlanta, so maybe you can use that diff to help me figure out what you meant.

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * David, that's a great addition on the first. On the second (the Matt Easton one), the only video source being used is a video by Matt Easton. There's no-one else that Perf could have possibly been referring to. The specific text from that diff is as follows:
 * And what's wrong with a video from a published historian and archeologist? Do the words change if he writes them on an article on a website instead of speaking them? If videos weren't acceptable sources, why would Wikipedia even have a citation category for citing A/V media?
 * ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  12:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)