User talk:Veritas20132014

Welcome!
Hello, Veritas20132014, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=665020737 your edit] to Hernando de Soto may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * as the site of the town of Potano visited by the de Soto expedition, and of the later mission of San Buenaventura de Potano {{cite news|last1=Hiers|first1=Fred|title=Archeologists

Edits on Hernando de Soto
In one edit you removed three paragraphs from the article (each with a citation to a different source) with the explanation that the "source is not peer-reviewed", but the next edit you restored material with citations to sources that were probably not peer-reviewed. If you want editors to reach consensus on the talk page you could provide a better explanation there and not just undo edits as you have been doing. Peter James (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter James - there is a request for comment on the Talk page explaining the issues concerning the alleged White Ranch site. The two editors "LisaWalsh" and "DalvarMartinez" have repeatedly been asked to address those issues prior to making further changes to the article and never have; furthermore, they refuse to acknowledge the existence of the controversy, which is why the edits they placed were removed.


 * Now I understand your requests to use the talk page; at first I'd seen your contributions page with several reverts, and no talk page edits; I should have checked for existing discussion. I've seen the talk page and commented there. As there is not much activity there, if the content dispute continues you could ask at the talk page of one of the Wikiprojects linked on the article's talk page, or at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Peter James (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

warning
I left you a message here.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That journal
You're correct.. You can always go to WP:RSN About dubious sources, be careful not to get into an WP: Edit war. Doug Weller talk 07:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverted Edit
Hey Veritas! Thanks for correcting my recent edit. I always try and find references which are well suited for Wikipedia, and didn't know this book might have been plagiarized. When I reviewed that book I saw it has an extensive acknowledgements section where it lists many solid organizations from which it received permissions. If that list is fictional, how can I make sure I'm finding poor references in the future? In other words, I'm still under the impression this book received permission for its information, how do I find its peer-reviewed status so I don't make this mistake again? Thanks! S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 21:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, Semmendinger - thanks for your question and your work here on Wikipedia! In the case of this specific source, it's safe to assume that any acknowledgements or permissions are faked - this author (F.A. White) has a long history of plagiarism and forgery in several fields. As a general rule, any publication through XLibris or the "Science Publishing Group" journals should be viewed as an unreliable source, since both venues are for self-publishing without peer review.Veritas20132014 (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the heads up! I will keep that in mind :) S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 02:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hernando de Soto
Hi, thanks for your comments on the White Ranch hoax. I will read further about that - I had an uneasy feeling when reading about the 2016 consensus on the site of Potano, but did not have time earlier to follow up on it. Always interesting.Parkwells (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)