82.241.210.129

July 2016

Hello, I'm Donner60. An edit you recently made to Tomb of Genghis Khan seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please either make the changes you suggest in the text if you are certain they are correct or put your comment on the talk page. You may express comments about the content of the article and needed improvements or ask for comments or help on the article's talk page. It is not appropriate to put them in the text of articles. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I realize you are correct. One other way to handle this is to put {{disputed}} at the end of the sentence. Donner60 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

One more possibility is that it is a typo. However, none of the links to references or external links in the article that are searchable have the disputed statement. So it would seem that someone would have to have access to other references to check whether this is a typo, a mistake in the original source or even some greater error about the book. In the absence of something more concrete, I suggest you put a note on the talk page pointing out the error and put the disputed template after the sentence in question. Sorry for the technicalities but that is part of the process. Donner60 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the reply to your comment that I put on my talk page. I am repeating here to be sure you see it and because it has a few extra remarks. "I put comments on your talk page. Extended messages in the context of articles are not appropriate under Wikipedia guidelines, even though it appears you are correct. I suggested you put the template {{disputed}} after the sentence in question and put a brief explanation on the talk page. I left some Wikipedia page links as information. I checked all the references that could be checked but did not find a reference to the sentence. A number of possible explanations not limited to a typo, a mixed up in the reference of some sort (different book, author not a Jesuit, etc.) and others may exist. In the absence of something more definitive, I think my suggestions are in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Changing the century reference may even be acceptable, although that may be too close to the edge and I would not do that if I could not find a source. My further thought is that someone converted a year in the 1500s to 15th century. The problem here is that even if you are correct, guidelines do not permit commentaries in the text of articles. If they did, all kinds of unsourced comments or challenges or disputes that are not credible, as yours is, could occur." Donner60 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

---