User talk:WikiiTrip

Welcome!
Hello, WikiiTrip, 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 complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 94rain Talk 01:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Anatoly Fomenko ‎ seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''We don't call people important in Wikipedia's voice. ''  Doug Weller  talk 07:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Doug, I am not sure how to contact you on your talk page. I am leaving this edit here in hopes that you see it. I do believe there has been a mistake is removing my edit. I have updated it with a neutral point of view which describes the viewpoints of the New Chronology in a neutral and non-biased way. The previous edit had 6 citations of which maybe one might check out but doubtfully. It is safe to say that the easily verifiable edit which I have provided is in stronger accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. - Sincerely, WikiiTrip


 * I don't see that at all. You seem to be removing the work of academics because you disagree with them. Eg James H. Billington. His work is definitely rejected by main stream historians. You need to read WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Our definition of neutral point of view is I'm sure not what you think it is. Wikipedia definitely has a mainstream bias and this article needs to show that his views aren't generally accepted. I'm not sure why you are contacting me as it was two other editors who reverted you. Please sign with 4 tildes, eg ~ and use the talk page to discuss your edits. You shouldn't continue to make these edits without WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps you could say there why there is a sudden interest in the page? Is something being said on the Internet somewhere? Doug Weller  talk 14:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Doug, I'm not sure why you're not sure why I'm contacting you because you said I can leave you a message on your talk page, and I opened my message with "I am not sure how to contact you on your talk page." You want to use James H. Billington as a reference to slander the New Chronology, but then in your next sentence you ambiguously condemn your source as rejected by main stream historians. Then you go to say Wikipedia has a mainstream bias. So why use a source that you yourself have condemned as being against Wiki's bias. Have you checked the 6 sources for the pseudoscience claim? They are laughable even by mainstream standards. Here's to hoping you comprehend what I've written here for you to read. Still waiting on info about how to use a "talk page", much less why you'd choose a broken link as more favorable to Wiki's bias over a legitimate and verifiable source which I have provided.


 * Sorry, I was unclear. By "his" I mean Fomenko. I forget that the templated note would suggest contacting me. Criticism isn't slander. When you look at an article, at the top there should be a tab that says "Talk". Click on that, start a new thread at the bottom, sign with 4 tildes, eg ~ Insulting editors is a bad start. Doug Weller  talk 16:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)