User talk:Zxcvbnm98765

Welcome!

 * }

Ur
I've restored your edits and commented on the talk page. Would you please make sure you've read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and particularly WP:NOR as writing a Wikipedia article is very different from writing an essay, where you can use sources to construct an argument. Here we try to present what reliable sources say directly about a subject (see also WP:NPOV. Thanks. --Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't let Til drive you off. He edits from a more or less biblical literalist viewpoint and we need people like you with expertise. And don't think of him as typical, please. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am not able to contribute to the conversation directly, not being versed in the literature, but I am now also watching what's going on. Please do continue to provide us with your expertise. and with solid academic references appropriate to the material. Lady  of  Shalott  21:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) It has been very frustrating, and I let myself get carried away (which I guess is the nature of online debates). I will try to contribute a little bit occasionally, but I was hoping that if I would point out some wonderful recent volumes that he or anyone else would pick them up, read them, and use them when writing entries here. Unfortunately Til Eulenspiegel seems very stubborn regarding his "sources" and refuses to use anything else than outdated and some flawed references (and of course his own statements on wikipedia which he seems to believe to be facts simply because they are on wikipedia ..). By no means do I want to claim a monopoly on this knowledge, nor do I want to claim that I know it all, and I did not want to sound arrogant when referring to my background and current position. It just all gets so incredibly frustrating for some weird reason when random people treat you as some unknowing amateur, while in reality you devote your life to it, move to a different continent to pursue it, and spend every day involved with it. But the value of Wikipedia I believe is that there is dissemination of knowledge and that people who do not have access to all the material, or do not have the time or energy to spend too much time on it, are able to read some basic, but up to date information. I can only hope that Til or anyone else will read accessible sources such as "Art of the First Cities". Anyway .. this has been an interesting experience, to say the least ...Srenette (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)srenette


 * I hope you stay around. Do however please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Don't think Til's personal comments about you are typical of the way we expect editors to behave and please don't do the same. How about trying to respond to Student7's comments? Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I, too, hope you will continue to contribute.
 * You are not necessarily alone, as you can see here. As Doug has suggested, it's usually best to keep the volume of the discussion down even if you feel provoked. Student7 (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary&#32;for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. D6h! ?'' 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)