User talk:En historiker

November 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Wiki-historikeren", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it contains "Wiki" in such a way as to suggest you have an official role here. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. I see that your name translates to "Wiki-historian". This suggests you have an official role on this wiki. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. In the future, please do not mark as minor edits that are not minor. Please read WP:MINOR for more details. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Freeman (historian)

Please add an ISBN? You can use wp:RefToolbar/2.0, use {{cite book}}, or {{ISBN}} Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your question on my talk page. You can click on the above links to find info on using the wp:templates. They can be cumbersome. An ISBN example: {{ISBN|978-0312851828}} (the nowiki stuff inhibits compilation of code) which generates: ISBN 978-0312851828 You can look at other pages which use cite book references or at the instructions on {{cite book}}. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Your recent editing history at Charles Freeman (historian) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Freeman being criticized by scholars of science because he tends to perpetuate myths:

Hello

I hope I have done it right with the talk page intended to solve some editing issues.

I find it worth to mention that Charles Freeman has being criticized by scholars of science because he tends to perpetuate myths.

In "The Beginnings of Western Science" on page 358 by David Lindberg: After Lindberg explained the history of science's role in Middle Ages and why it is a myth that the early Christians should have destroyed it as they rather preserved it, he explained that even today some (amateur) historians without relevant expertise, tend to perpetuate outdated myths despite the conventional sholarship refutes it obviously. Lindberg wrote about, and used, Charles Freeman as an example. Lindberg wrote: “Finally, to demonstrate that such views are alive and well, I quote Charles Freeman in his Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (2003): By the fifth century of the Christian era, he argues, “not only has rational thought been suppressed, but there has been a substitution for it of ‘mystery, magic, and authority’. It is little wonder, given this kind of scholarly backing, that the ignorance and degradation of the Middle Ages has become an article of faith among the general public, achieving the status of invulnerability merely by virtue of endless repetition.”

In Ronald Numbers "Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion” on page 9: Here Charles Freeman is again used as an example on how outdated teaching are repeated by (amateur) historians, and Freeman's name is in it. After explaining and debunking the hoary myth about some wicked early Christians should have destroyed science and why it is refuted in the academia, it states that: “The misleading accounts of Hypatia’s death and Freeman’s Closing of the Western Mind, quoted above, are attempts to keep alive an old myth: the portrayal of early Christianity as a haven of anti- intellectualism, a fountainhead of antiscientific sentiment, and one of the primary agents responsible for Europe’s descent into what are popularly referred to as the “dark ages.” Supporting evidence is available, if not plentiful.”

Thus I find it in the interests of the readers to know that Charles Freeman has been accused of perputuating myths with ragard to Middle Ages and the history of science which is not his expertise area. - Conventional sholarships refute Charles Freeman's assumption, just as my academic sources by the two historians of science suggest. If you can find any academic sources BY HISTORIANS OF SCIENCE who support the outdated thesis of Freeman's, then i would like to see them: they do not exist.

Therefore I think Charles Freeman's page should contain the information of Lindberg and Numbers, two renowned historians of science, who accuse Freeman of perpetuating already debunked myths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by En historiker (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should post the above on Talk:Charles Freeman (historian) --NeilN ^talk to me 14:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. In addition: a. don't insult other editors; "paranoid" is never a word to use when discussing others on Wikipedia; b. please read WP:CITE and do citations properly. This is just completely insufficient, as any Freshman Comp student can tell you after they did the research paper. See this edit, for instance. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. NeilN ^talk to me 01:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN - I suggest you to see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Freeman_(historian)

En historiker (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of evidence against Yury Dmitriev

Thank you for adding a brief passage to the opening section of this page, concerning the general response of Dmitriev's family, friends and colleagues to the terrible charges brought against him last year.

Yesterday's court hearing in Petrozavodsk 26 December 2017) considered the assessment of the evidence made by the new forensic experts. To the dismay of the judge and the prosecution the new assessment did NOT find any pornographic element in the photographs Dmitriev took of his adopted daughter.

The whole debate can be examined in more depth on the regularly updated Dmitriev Affair website.

John Crowfoot (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello En historiker, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Michael Psellos have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--DBigXrayᗙ 00:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Your recent editing history at Jamal Khashoggi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DBigXrayᗙ 00:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, En historiker. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (December 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, En historiker! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (January 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion

Hello, En historiker. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 09:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article can just be deleted since I already have removed the article to the page of Ronald Numbers En historiker (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]