User talk:RMS1964

Welcome!
Hi RMS1964! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Some additional info
As I mentioned in my response to your edits on Talk:Shroud of Turin, here are some additional points to help you understand the world of Editing Wikipedia. There are many, many policies and guidelines for editing Wikipedia, far too many to list here, but don't worry: with time you will gradually be introduced to them.

Firstly, all suggested content, particularly content in topic areas that are WP:CONTENTIOUS, such as Shroud of Turin, needs to be reliably sourced. The details of that Wikipedia policy are presented at WP:RS; please click that link and read the content therein. I know that's a lot of material to read, but it is well worth the time because it explains, often in great detail, why some material (such as many of the sources you desired to add to the article) are not considered reliable. I emphasize the word policy because it is a long-established rule that is not up for debate/discussion, at least not on article Talk pages.

Secondly, you need to understand the concept of WP:OR; that is, original research. This is another Wikipedia policy. All article content should be explicitly tied to a source(s). If one source says "1", and another source says "2," an editor like you and me cannot conclude, in Wikipedia voice (that is, as content on a Wikipedia page), that "1" plus "2" equals "3." If a reliable source says "1+2=3" then sure, it can be included. But we editors are not reliable sources, no matter how obvious/true/correct we (think we) are. Many of your suggestions seemed to run afoul of WP:OR.

Thirdly, please read WP:CONSENSUS. That is the basic model by which Wikipedia editors decide what is, and what is not, included in articles. You might have the greatest suggestion of all time, it might be "right," but if it does not achieve consensus, it is not included. Please prepare yourself for that, because I can tell you right now, based upon the many, many previous discussions on Talk:Shroud of Turin (all of which can be accessed from the Talk page's archive), that most of your desired content will not achieve consensus. Do not take it personally - that happens, at one point(s) or another, to all editors.

Fourthly, you should read WP:TLDR. Your post at Talk:Shroud of Turin was far, far too long and contained way too many edit requests. When most editors see a gigantic post like that, independently of whether that post is full of interesting or helpful information, they simply won't bother to read it. That's just the way things are here, like it or not. In the future, if you really want your requests to be read and considered, I strongly suggest that you make brief posts that focus solely upon one item. Similar to a too-long post, posting multiple small requests in rapid succession will not be seen as helpful. On article Talk pages it is best to post one thing, discuss it, reach a consensus, and then move on to the next thing.

Lastly, it is proper form to sign all of your posts, especially those on article Talk pages. That way other editors know who they are having a discussion with. There are "bots" that come along and sign posts that are unsigned, but they sometimes don't show up. Signing a post is simple: just type four consecutive tildes (~) immediately after the final period of your post (.).

As the welcome message above notes, the Teahouse is a good place to get advice/opinions about editing Wikipedia. I am going to soon post another message here, formally notifying you about contentious topics. It is just a formality, but an important one, as editing in contentious topic areas can be challenging. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear JoJo Anthrax,
 * Thank you for your kind welcome of me and for taking the time to politely explain various points to me, regarding my suggested edits to this article, and regarding editing of Wikipedia article's in general. I greatly appreciate your civility toward me, a virtue which very unfortunately is lacking among too many Americans these days (on both the left & the right) .  I wish so much that people would live by Matthew 7:12 & Matthew 22:34-40; if we would, I think that 90% of problems in America (and in the world) would go away (i.e. so much of our suffering, as individuals, and as a country, are caused by a lack of love of others).
 * If the rules you mentioned to me (about requiring original references & "more reliable" references) are the rules here at Wikipedia, well then that's the way that it is. (Although none of the references upon which I bassed my suggested edits are unreliable.)  If I have enough free time in the future, I will try to find more primary sources for each of the edits that I suggested.  However, I do believe that those edits are greatly needed in this article.  much of the article's section on the Scientific Analysis of the Shroud is on hypotheses about the Shroud originating in medieval times and/or due to man-made (i.e. not supernatural) causes.  Those hypotheses exist, so they must be covered.  However, TOO LITTLE of the article's section on the Scientific Analysis of the Shroud covers the evidence for the Shroud originating during the time of Christ, reasons to believe why its image was not man-made, and evidence which refutes the pro-medieval-origin & pro-man-made-origin hypotheses.  (For example, in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Tests_for_pigments, at the end of its first paragraph, it says "McCrone reported that no actual blood was present in the samples taken from the Shroud.[5]"  McCrone may have concluded that, and so that conclusion must be reported.  However, it is flat-out wrong:  those stains have been confirmed as human blood, human blood from a person who has undergone severe trauma, and blood which wetted the cloth prior to the image appearing there.  However, this info. wasn't reported in this article.)  The lack of the pro-ancient-origin & anti-man-made-origin arguments & evidence seriously hurt both the accuracy & objectivity of this article.
 * Lastly (for now), thank you for explaining to me how to properly sign my post. I thought that by ending my post with "RMS1964" I had signed my addition to the "Talk" on this article.
 * Gratefully yours,
 * Roman Michael Skikun (a.k.a. "RMS1964")
 * Novi, MI, U.S.A. RMS1964 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)