Dr. R.M. de Jonge

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dr. R.M. de Jonge. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Rockall, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Thanks for your addition of an interesting theory to many of the isalands of the Atlantic. However this novel claim is "Daniken-esque" in its originality. Such material can only be retained on Wikipedia if it is supported by reliable sources. I would warn you that such material, especially when you're both the author and the wiki editor adding it, is very likely to be challenged by other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Greenland

You are advised to please take heed of the information and links contained in the warning above. The same applies to the edit you made to this article. The information needs sourcing from reliable sources, and you are violating our policies about conflict of interest by citing sources you yourself participated in creating. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The above

Hi mr. de Jonge, If you need help or advice regarding Wikipedia or using the information you have researched, feel free to contact me on my talkpage or via e-mail. I speak Dutch as well. Groeten, Pim Rijkee (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Early Discovery of Canary Islands

The article Early Discovery of Canary Islands has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

there is not enough info on its own - the page would be better merged with Canary Islands.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. "Pepper" 21:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the prod from this, as I would suggest that it belongs better with the AfD process.

There is scope for an article like this on the Early discovery theories for mid-Atlantic islands (as one possible name), based on the work and publications of User:Dr. R.M. de Jonge. These theories are novel and somewhat controversial as a minimum - I'm sure some other editors might word it more strongly - and I think that WP's coverage of this would be best if centralised.

Obviously our usual policies of WP:N and WP:GNG would need to be followed. As a note to Dr de Jonge, this depends (by wiki lore) on the provision of independent third party comment on the theories or the publications that discuss them. This is a strong policy that cannot really be bent. Such coverage, even an adequate book review, even dismissive comments (the issue is comment, not support), is needed, or else this article will find itself deleted. Through AfD though, there is at least a week to try and assemble such 3rd party references. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

COI issues

repasted from user talk:Andy Dingley - please continue here.

Dear Mr. Andy Dingley, I am not affiliated with one of the parties involved in the conflict about the Islet of Rockall. I am a completely independent researcher.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're an author who has just added identical links about four of your books to half-a-dozen articles. This is the sort of edit that raises eyebrows locally, as it's seen as being more about self-promotion than it is about improving article content. I've not read them myself, so I don't know how important, reliable or relevant this content is: accordingly I've not changed this addition. I would warn you though that many editors here follow the view that "If it's not on Google, it's wrong". This many additions is also likely to be seen as spam first, a novel theory second (and it must be said, this is a very novel theory). It would have better support if it had wider support, some sourcing from authors unconnected with your own work. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for not changing this addition. The early discovery dates of the Atlantic islands were already mentioned in my book published in 2002. So, that is nine years ago. If nobody else wants to put this information on Wikipedia, I have to do it my self. It has nothing to do with self-promotion, but with bringing important information to the public. It has nothing to do with spam, because these are islands thousand of miles away from each other, which were discovered centuries after each other. It is not a novel theory, because, as I said, the main book has been published 9 years ago. My first (Dutch) book was published in 1996, which is 15 years ago. I cannot mention other references, because nobody has attacked my work on this subject. Only two or three authors worked together, and these are mentioned. I don't know what to do to improve the contributions. If you have an idea, please let me know ... --Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you would benefit from more experience of Wikipedia, its ways and its rules. These are not simple or straightforward! In particular, the triumvirate of WP:N, WP:V & WP:RS are the most relevant and strictly implemented in this case - you should certainly read these pages and those around them. The "5 pillars" in contrast, and the idea of building an encyclopedia about content, are wholly ignored. This, I suppose, is what happens when you take a bunch of naive teenagers and give them a rulebook and a ruling clique to join.

The biggest problem here is WP's aversion to primary sources. If you have developed a novel theory and published on the subject, then that is not acceptable for inclusion on WP until you can also find some independent commentary on your work by a 3rd party. There is very little way round this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Hello Dr. R.M. de Jonge. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Early Discovery of Greenland, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Early Discovery of Rockall

A tag has been placed on Early Discovery of Rockall, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is a hoax - copied and pasted from other pages on Atlantic islands - Rockall was not recorded 4100bc in Spain...

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Early Discovery of Rockall, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The pages you have been created are hoaxes of a particularly malicious kind. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Early Discovery of the Azores

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Early Discovery of the Azores, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Early Discovery of Madeira

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Early Discovery of Madeira, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Early Discovery of...

Dr. Jonge, I should inform you that your articles (Early Discovery of the Azores and Early Discovery of Madeira, among others) are, in fact, conflict of interest per the Wikipedia:SELFCITE policy. Although I do not have any problems with the claims, your intentional self-promotion of your works, make these articles suspect. Per this convention "citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work". This has been the problem with your entries: instead of citing other references that support the claims, your editions have supported your own work. Further, your articles presupposes only one interpretation (a fact that can be rectified with alternate interpretations) and these articles (Azores and Madeira, for example) could have been better integrated into the pre-existing subjects (for example, the History of the Azores and History of Madeira articles) which cover the historical issues of those islands.

BTW, I notice that you indicated in other correspondence that your books have been published nine and 15 years ago. While I must commend your literary success, the fact that books have existed in print for many years does not necessarily mean that their content has been accepted by academia or the general public. If so, then we should expect to see other authors or academics referencing your works (rather then the yourself). A better way to have included concepts with this theory would have been to cite your sources, rather then citing your works. Consequently, other interpretations could be identified and supporting hypotheses included in the article. I will note that only recently Hypogea were discovered in Corvo and Terceira by Nuno Ribeiro (2010), that may support your thesis (yet, archaeological investigations have not been undertaken to prove their purported 2000 year age).

Regardless, I can not support those pages based on the Wikipedia:SELFCITE and will request a deletion based on Wikipedia:OR. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

All of these are pov WP:CFORKs of other articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

CFORK isn't how I'd choose to describe them, as they're new content (within the last couple of days), not a split of established content within a single article. Secondary sourcing is the problem here, not the direction of the content.

I would incidentally favour a single article because I see the theory (across many islnads) as being the important core of this content, not the history of individual islands. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Dr. Jonge has indicated that "My own contributions should be considered as a new development in the archaeological research of these islands." indicates that he does not understand or accept the WP:SELFCITE or WP:OR conventions. I have already suggested that integrating content into pre-existing "History of..." articles would have been a better way to resolve the WP:CFORK referencing of content of this nature. Regardless, the fact is that his articles violate the concepts inherent in the self-citing and original research conventions, and I would further allude that they are borderline WP:PROMO (if not completely). Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy, the way I read WP:CFORK these are certainly forks, they are simply part of the history of these geographical areas. They are pov forks as they put forward only one idea, a fringe one based on sources that are at best dubious. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not create any new articles until the outcome of the AfDs

I'm asking you not to create any new articles right now. So far there is virtually unanimous opinion that you are creating articles against our policies and guidelines, and it seems reasonable to see how the AfDs work out before you create anything new. This isn't an enforceable request but would show your good will and willingness to listen to other editors. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

...and...

...please don't add your own research to articles such as Iceland--certainly not until it's published in more acceptable journals. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 23 June 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 ( ~~~~ ) 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) 16:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Early Discovery of Atlantic Islands

Dear moderators: The claim has been mainly based on decipherment of the two mentioned groups of petroglyphs. The only text which could be added to the articles is the following: "Both groups of petroglyphs are prooven to be megalithic (Ref.1). Both the passage grave of Cairn T at Loughcrew, and the petroglyphs in it, date from the time of the construction of Stonehenge I in South England, c.3200 BC (Refs.1-5). The eleven petroglyphs of Dissignac were made one after the other, spread in time from before the construction of the passage grave, c.4500 BC, to c.2500 BC, after which the monument was closed (Refs.6-9). As far is known, the interpretations of both groups of petroglyphs are not disputed in the literature."

References: 1. Twohig, E. Shee, The Megalithic Art of Western Europe, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981 2. Eogan, G., Knowth, and the Passage Tombs of Ireland, Thames and Hudson, 1986 (ISBN 0-500-39023-1). 3. Dames, M., Mythic Ireland, Thames & Hudson, London, 1992 (ISBN 0-500-27872-5) 4. Richards, J., Stonehenge, English Heritage, 1992 (ISBN 0-7134-6142-X)) 5. Atkinson, R.J.C., Stonehenge, London, 1979 6. Briard, J., The Megaliths of Brittany, 1991 (ISBN 2-87747-063-6) 7. Giot, P.R., Prehistory in Brittany, Ed. JOS (ISBN 2-85543--123-9) 8. Giot, P.R., La Bretagne. des Megalithes, Ed. Ouest France, 1995 (ISBN 2-7373-1388-0) (French) 9. Batt, M., and others, Au Pays des Megalithes, Carnac-Loc-mariaquer, Ed. JOS, 1991 (ISBN 2-85543-001-1) (French).--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Early Discovery of Atlantic Islands

Dear moderators: The core of the articles dates from the publication of the SunGod book in 2002. This is 9 years ago. Our book was well received, and the conclusions are not disputed in the literature. It is that simple. For that reason I cannot give "secondary sourcing". - If the archaeological community does not react in this case, it is their responsibility, not mine. - I can include references of articles about our books, which appeared just after the publications of the books we published. That is certainly possible.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Early Discovery of Atlantic Islands

Dear moderators, The highest authority in archaeology in the Netherlands received a copy of the SunGod book in 2002. It is in their library. Reference: Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed, The Netherlands, Website: www.cultureelerfgoed.nl References Dutch book: Website: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL3657395M/De_Stenen_Spreken Van Rompuy, A., Website: http://www.megalitica.be/boeken/destenen.htm References SunGod book: Lichtenberg, L., Archeologie Magazine, Nr.1, 2004, p.63 (ISSN 1566-7553) Van Rompuy, A., Website: http://www.megalitica.be/boeken/sungod.htm Tiffany, J., Coded Messages of the Megalith Builders, The Barnes Review, Vol. VIII, No.5, September/October 2002, pgs.53-56, Website: www.barnesreview.org--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

'The highest authority in archaeology in the Netherlands received a copy of the SunGod book in 2002. '

Know what? I don't care. I won't even begin to care until they say something about what they received. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Barnes Review!!!???

An article in the anti-semitic holocaust denying journal is not an impressive source. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I am sorry, but I don't know anything about the background of this magazine. If you are right it is not an impressive source, indeed.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)