User talk:KoosJaspers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, KoosJaspers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Francis Schonken 11:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salome

True, I had been a bit rash in reverting your contributions to the Salome article:

  • however, the "satanic" epithet (etc) used in that contribution didn't seem to have much of an encyclopedical value.
  • yes, indeed, use references to reliable sources for whatever you contribute: the more far-fetched the claims are (and I think "gnostic traditions" beyond the usual environment of an average reader of the encyclopedia), the more such references are wanted. If good sources are provided, you can write almost anything (insofar what you write is covered by such sources, of course). I haven't been involved in the "Dance of the seven veils" article myself, but I recon it could profit from some cleanup (and listing of sound references).

--Francis Schonken 11:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salome, sequel

I reverted your edit for the reasons given in my Edit summary [1]:

Don't remove "Commons" link please 
You had removed {{Commons|Category:Salome}} for no discernable reason. That links to commons:Category:Salome showing more than a dozen Salome paintings.
Wikipedia tries to avoid "curiosa"/"trivia" - see talk page 
The talk page being Talk:Salome, discussing trivia extensively. Insofar as "curiosa" is yet another cover-up name for "trivia" and the like, I applied Wikipedia:Trivia

Why I did *not* revert is because of the unsourced statements. But still, I saw no intention from your side to follow Wikipedia:Citing sources (despite my previous message on this talk page of yours). If you don't mention any source for the statements you want to see included in Wikipedia (and which are still interpretations that are beyond common knowledge), they can be removed on sight per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Again, that's not why I removed these statements this time, but you've been invited twice now to provide references to reliable sources: if you still think sources are not needed, I can only say that mentioning "hermetic rites that were in decay at Herod's time", and the like, will not get by without a serious reference to a scholar work. --Francis Schonken 12:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)