JouniJokela

Welcome!

Hello, JouniJokela, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Julietdeltalima, I understand the NPOV. Yet, the source I gave is the only currently the only available, and it's good enough to stand alone as a reliable source to anyone who are intereted to the issues. The comments of the video proves this.

There's no rush, really. If this latest theory on the Voynich manuscript has merit, proper independent sources will soon appear, and we can include the material again. This is an encyclopedia, not a news relay.--Nø (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree; no rush. But then, I looked this video already 2 years ago, and it's 3 years old. All comments are positive and supporting, and The man who has solved this has no access to any "proper independet sources" where he's work could be published. I've already talked with him two years ago, and told that he should not worry, the work of John Bacon was hidden only some 600 years before it was found,,, Bacon was in the level of Newton 400 years before Newton. But then, the catholic church was also only passing the true books, not a news relay. I've done now. Wont edit this chapter again. But why there is the Rush to delete my material immediately, if there is no Rush? Maybe some one looks the video, because of this hint and produces the proper material? Now this person Sukhwant Singh doesn't exist at all in the Wiki article! But there are some Nicholas Gibbs mentioned? JouniJokela (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors our job is not to look at self-published work like this and judge its Truth, or its usefulness. An encyclopedia is not a research publication, we don't engage in peer review.

An encyclopedia reports on what the current state of the art is, according to reputable, reliable sources.

Please try to imagine what would happen if we ignored this policy and we let editors to put whatever they personally thought was true into Wikipedia articles. That should go some way to explaining why there is a "rush" to remove improperly sourced material. ApLundell (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am a libertarian and believe to the freedom of speech. I also do understand that linking to Youtube, can't mostly be accepted. But in this case, If you actually really look the linked video, and the comments below, you should notice that it's not really a typical youtube contribution. In this context, I can't imagine any negative scenario "what would happen", because I really only added just another decipherment claim, just one of ten other. What I mean, is I didn't remove any other claims, as this would have truly influenced to the usability of Encyclopedia, which purpose is simply providing information. JouniJokela (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

As I stand for this edit; I simply provide the information here;

We all believe in freedom of speach, but that does not mean that any platform must accept any content. This is an encyclopaedia, and thus it is a fundamental principle that we don't include what we believe looks right, rarely what primary sources say, but generally what several independent reputable secondary sources say. You can to a certain extent include what you like on your user page and your talk page, but even they are hosted on a server made available to you by a non-profit organisation with the aim of building an encyclopaedia, so all content should ultimately be directed towards that aim. Yes there is room for differences of opinion and there is freedom of speech; e.g., you can engage in discussions about those basic principles about proper sources (here Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources, I think), but contentious material (and this Voynich theory is contentious, as should be obvious from the fact that it as you say has been around for awhile, but still apparently hasn't been accepted by scores of reputable sources), included without a proper source (proper according to the principles that apply in an encylcopaedia), will be removed. (And, by the way, even uncontentious material without proper sources may be removed, leaving the onus of providing such sources on those who want to include the material.)--Nø (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. I mainly agree with it. The issue in hand is basically not really interesting to "several independent reputable secondary sources". I consider my self as a such; I have no connection to Sukhwant Singh, I studied the stuff independently and concluded that it's correct.

I actually realized that page 68V is heliocentric system describing times, and 69V might be Saturn before I even saw this shorter video of Mr. Singh. (17:50->)

So let this talk page be just one independent secondary source. It might help other to spend the time needed and then also step forward, until the truth wins. -There is no rush indeed, the Truth stands alone, also without our support, just waiting to be observed. JouniJokela (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

If it were true (which it isn't) that a successful decifrement of the Voynich manuscript is not really interesting to "several independent reputable secondary sources", it would not belong in this encyclopaedia (which it does - once the sources are there).--Nø (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the fact that there is an article about the Nicholas_Gibbs which I consider to be completely uninformative and thus fully wrong in place. Also all the other in this list of Decipherment claims doesn't provide too much words or sentencies to be read from the Manuscript. But if you look the work of Mr. Singh, he has translated words and even full sentences through out the manuscript. Ie. First paragraph from 1r goes like this; "Many 100's of yeas desire tradition and as requested by the cultivator from his pouring knowledge in under increasing guidance. To accomplish it this promise of the interrogation of field subjects and about those manner for eating about their power learning from oneself condition about under ongoing sufferings about stuck in those conditions which has already affected them learning from them in self-help either called for taking care during taking care of when called by the messenger one about trees provided information in parts and about desire -And ofcourse this is similarily broken translation as the google translator produces, but still you can find the story from this. (43:18 at video)JouniJokela (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

You are probably right others should be removed too (if that's what you are saying). But being a failure does not mean a decifherment does not belong here, if it is well sourced and somehow noteworthy. The issue about sources is fairly objective; the notewortiness is quite subjective.--Nø (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Voynich manuscript, Decipherment claims

Sukhwant Singh

Mr Singh provides a very solid and reasonable explanation for the Manuscript in Youtube; Though there is no other realiable source than this video, This video is 55 minutes long full explanation about the issue, providing substantial proof for each section.

The manuscript is Originated from Sindh, is in Landa Khojki scripts. Khawaja Ismail i, Bukhara, Samarkand Uzbekistan Connection. He clearly recognizes places with foto proofs which are explained the in the book; Samarkand, Bukhara, Khiva, Uzbekistan. He explaines the purpose of the book,(It's Merchant-family book not meant for others to read, passed from father to son.) and the historical context it was made in. He can translate any single page in the book if needed. For example the women bathing picture is explained at time 14:15 in the video, are shown to be from Bukhara, Uzbekistan, where similarily build buildings can be found. As an example is given the Bolo-Haus, Mosque, which is build later though.JouniJokela (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Voynich manuscript. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for hint. I have wrote above already; "I've done now. Wont edit this chapter again." at 22:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC). This means I leave the issue, to others. Btw. I wonder what should be replied to the comment of Taavi Viikman 6 months ago; "This is fascinating, but to this day I can read some new theories by scholars about the VM which are just hypothesises and not as thorough as your theory. There is no reference to your work in Wikipedia. What the heck is going on?" This comment can be found below the mentioned video.JouniJokela (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello JouniJokela, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I had already written this reply on my talk page when you removed your message, so I'll put it here instead: Sources should only be used to back up statements we make in our own words, unless the exact phrasing used in the source is somehow really important. In that case the we need to make it clear to the reader that we're quoting someone else, e.g. In such-an-such work, so-and-so writes "something something"<ref>the work</ref>. But 99.9% percent of the time it's better to (not-too-closely) paraphrase. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate sources

Again, our articles should not be referenced to a self-published youtube video, no matter how convinced you are of the WP:TRUTH of that video. ApLundell (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@ApLundell: Was this link to book also considered inappropriate?JouniJokela (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Gale Eaton recognizes the work of Sukhwant Singh in his book.