Saddeleur

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
• Simplified 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.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

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) 06:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Exodus

I've reverted you for several reasons. This isn't a reliable source by our criteria - see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. The author is an electronic engineer, the publisher specialises in "titles on general spirituality ", not biblical studies, archaeology, etc. It also is not a significant view unless you can show that it is discussed in some depth in reliable sources. Finally, we don't say 'confirmed', 'proved'. etc - again read WP:NPOV. I wouldn't expect you to know our guidelines and policies yet, so no problem but it would help in future edits if you read them. Also, please use WP:Edit summaries when you edit. Thanks and again welcome. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The same reasoning would apply to my reverting of your edit at Santorini. Wikipedia can't claim "proof" of a theory. I doubt that even science can do that. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Hello, Saddeleur. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Exodus, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. You need to know about this also. It's another reason that you should not have been making this edit. Suggest it at the article talk/discussion page. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And thanks

For your very nice post to my talk page. It couldn't feel nice to have your first edits reverted, but there's a learnig curve here and we all fall foul of guidelines and policies from time to time and get reverted. As I've said, you can suggest this on the article's talk page but the reasons your book shouldn't be mentioned are pretty substnatial. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edits

I noticed that you made some recent edits to the exodus that were inappropriately deleted. There are some editors pushing an agenda on that page, and I have been in disputes with them for a while. We are restarting an attempt to bring some balance back to that page. I fully support your edits, and if we work together we can make sure that your edits and other corrections to the article remain in place. I hope you will join us on the talk page for the exodus and that you help us in editing it further.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Quarkgluonsoup, and thank you very much for your support! Doug has raised some valid points, however, certainly in the sense that I am effectively promoting my own work. Those entries should probably have been made by someone else, who thought it worthwhile. I was under the impression that once something has been published and is traceable, it would be allowed as a Wikipedia topic. Even here, though, I must agree with Doug. There must be hundreds of new theories being published by a great variety of publishers, and one cannot allow Wikipedia articles to become so cluttered that nobody wants to read through it all anymore.

Having said that, if there is a way in which this can be resolved amicably, I would of course be interested. In the end, though, we have to abide by the Wiki rules!