User talk:Garry Denke
Verifiability, not truth
Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X. Theory X has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you meet the physicist, and over a beer, he tells you: "Actually, I think Theory X is a load of rubbish." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.
Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?
For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia, you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it would be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that only accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper.
It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important.
If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verify
Verification
The author of this page has made various claims, but I am unable to verify these claims from any other source. I am of the opinion that the information presented here may be completely false. If no one else finds any information, I recommend that the page be nominated for deletion.
--Justin Eiler 10:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- After awhile, with practice,
- you'll get the hang of it.
- Garry Denke 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you.
Specifically, cutting and pasting a headline does not constitute verification. If you wish to verify an article, please make your links to the original document that contains the information, not to the index page of the website you are using.
Thank you.
- "If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source."
- "STONEHENGE HAS BEEN SOLD TO A TEXAS TYCOON". Wiltshire Times. April 1, 1985. p. 1.
- Newspaper article has been cited.
- Garry Denke 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Justin Eiler 04:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- "If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source."
- "STONEHENGE HAS BEEN SOLD TO A TEXAS TYCOON". Wiltshire Times. April 1, 1985. p. 1.
- Newspaper article has been cited.
- Garry Denke 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
A "citation" is a link to the actual article, not to an archive that does not contain the article in question. (The Wiltshire Times archive only goes back to 2000, not to 1985.)
As far as the claims: Stonehenge itself is owned by English Heritage, while the surrounding lands are owned by the National Trust of England. No sale has been made to a Garry Denke or to anyone else.
In short, the claim that Stonehenge was sold is patent nonsense.
--Justin Eiler 16:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- "If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source."
- "STONEHENGE HAS BEEN SOLD TO A TEXAS TYCOON". Wiltshire Times. April 1, 1985. p. 1.
- Well it was there Justin, thanks.
- Garry Denke 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Stone vs. Stone
[2] Mr. Marcus Stone, the world famous British painter
[3] is not Dr. John F.S. Stone, the British archaeologist
[4] Open Access would help Encyclopedias avoid errors.
[5] Thank you. Garry W. Denke, Geologist/Geophysicist
Garry Denke 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Denoco Inc. of Texas
[7] Denke TX
[8] Denoco TX
Hi
Thanks for your recent additions to Stonehenge. I've got a couple of queries on one of your edits, perhaps you'd like to pop over to the talk page and give your views? I've included what I wrote here as well -
- Hi, yes, thanks. Garry Denke 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Recent additions
The sentence Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk is the geologic formation outcrop at Stonehenge. has been added to the opening paragraph of the article. I'm sure that should be better worded for a start - 'The geologic formation outcrop at Stonehenge is Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk' for example. Also does anyone know what it means? I'm assuming it doesn't refer to the stones themselves since they are either the bluestones or the sarsens. Does it mean the land on which the monument is situated? This should be made clear.
Finally, it should be placed elsewhere in the article, it doesn't seem to fit in the opening paragraph, which is already long enough. Ideally, this should be a simple concise opening description of the salient facts. Discussing the geology at this stage will probably put off the casual reader.
What do people think?
Anyway, good luck Benea 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your "The geologic formation outcrop at Stonehenge is Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk" reads better for the introduction of Stonehenge's first building material stone, namely Limestone, the Chalk. With the links added (as shown therein and above), anyone would know what rocks built the monument's first features, its 6' high stone Bank, and of course the Avenue.
- Agreed, the opening paragraph is a bit long, however, after scrolling through the entire article, I could not find a more appropriate area to introduce its beginning stone, the first stone of the henge. If anyone sees a better place to insert your sentence for Stonehenge's foundation stone; Go for it!
- Sunset on Wednesday 20th June 2007 is 2126 hrs (9.26pm)
- Sunrise will occur at 0458 hrs (4.58am) on Thursday 21st June 2007
- Happy Summer Solstice everybody!
- Garry Denke 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Universal Polarity Flip
A universal polarity flip is a change in the orientation of universe's magnetic field such that the positions of its magnetic dipole become interchanged. These events, which have been described by oral tradition as lasting three (3) days, involve a decline in magnetic field strength followed by a rapid recovery after the new orientation has been established. Homo erectus observed the last universal polarity flip ~780,000 years ago, their observation passed down to Homo sapiens who recorded (altered by religious motives) their oral tradition.
Luminous intensity (SI: candela) decline; Universal polarity flip observation (altered);
King James Bible
- Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
- Ezekiel 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
- Joel 2:10 The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
- Joel 3:15 The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.
- Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
- Jude 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
- Revelation 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
Book of Mormon
- 2 Nephi 23:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
- Helaman 14:20 But behold, as I said unto you concerning another sign, a sign of his death, behold, in that day that he shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his light unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead.
- 3 Nephi 8:22 And there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, for so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land.
The Holy Qur'an
- Al-Qiyama (The Resurrection) 75:8 And the moon becomes dark,
- Al-Mursalat (The Sent Forth) 77:8 So when the stars are made to lose their light,
- At-Takwir (The Folded Up) 81:2 And when the stars darken,
(candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 x 10^12 hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1/683 watt per steradian)
The last universal polarity flip ~780,000 years ago was theorized by Bernard Brunhes (1867-1910), a French geophysicist known for his pioneering work in paleomagnetism, in particular, his 1906 discovery of the geomagnetic reversal, and Motonori Matuyama (1884-1958), a Japanese geophysicist known for his paper On the Direction of Magnetization of Basalt (1929), the period between the late Pliocene and the mid-Pleistocene during which the field reversed.
Brunhes-Matuyama reversal is the name of this Homo erectus observation.
Further reading
External links
Garry Denke 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)