User talk:Twospoonfuls

Pergamon Altar

I have removed your note regarding expansion of Pergamon Altar from Portal:Germany as the article does not really relate to Germany - you might want to enlist some help from Portal:Architecture or Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture instead. Agathoclea (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love edit

I am sorry, but I reverted that edit along with others and label it under the summery as vandalism. While you may not have been actually vandal sing the page, the other two reverts after yours were. Your revert was simply unjustifiable, not vandalism. You did not address the issue on the talk page where a full explanation of why the reference was removed is discussed. Please remember that if you fail to use the talk page or fail to establish, within policy why the reference should be included in the future, it could be defined as vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're on about, I haven't reverted anything, I added a note supporting a statement in the text.Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 17:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A contention attested, Dover suggests, by the evidence of vase painting, amongst others the Eurymedon vase, Dover, Greek Homosexuality, p.105.</ref>

It was a similar, if not nearly duplicate of another reference I thought I had previously removed.

This claim is of the work of the reference. If this type of citation is used it must meet certain standards of inclusion, one of which is to used for pertinent subjects especially the page of the author another how much the information adds to the article. One, maybe two such references on a page may not be questionable, but as many as the article had and still has, additional self referencing claims are nonconstructive. Also consensus is clear on the overweight of the article with un-necessary information about the authors and historians as not pertinant to the this subject should be kept to a minimum. Any article on a similar page would, of course expect some part of the history and sometimes, individual academics should be included, but not all. This should be referenced with a third party citation for inclusion. (which probably wont take that long)

The compromise would be to leave the information and reference with the removal of the unnesecary mention of the author. The claim is now not about the author, but about the vase alone.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No that doesn't work either. It is simply a claim that the author is making in his book. As this is clearly an argument within the prose (essay actualy) where the one historian is refuting another historian (this is so not needed in this article). In order to meet wiki standards this grand ( or...extreme) claim requires third party referencing.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Translating that into non-baffling English, you seem to be saying that individual academic arguments don't require referencing. Well please your damn self, it's not an edit I'd go to the guillotine for, though I suspect that's a rule you've made up on the cuff. Speaking as a reader I rather appreciate it when an article gives me the means to look up the evidence for a given argument for myself rather than relying on the Reader's Digest version presented by wikipedians.Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm pissing you off. So I'll just leave with the Wikipedia:Verifiability section and how it relates to the reference;

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

* the material is not unduly self-serving;

* it does not involve claims about third parties;

• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

* the article is not based primarily on such sources.

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

3 Revert rule In regards to Eurymedon Vase

I have reported this situation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warringNumber36 (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.