Zacherystaylor

Welcome!

Hello, Zacherystaylor, 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:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! IZAK (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Coe, Michael, Dean Snow, and Elizabeth Benson, 1986 "Atlas of Ancient America"
"The Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World", edited by Chris Scarre (1999) Thames & Hudson, London
Siliotti, Alberto, Zahi Hawass, 1997 "Guide to the Pyramids of Egypt"
Walker, Charles, 1980 "Wonders of the Ancient World"

Time Life Lost Civilizations series:

Africa's Glorious Legacy
Ancient India: Land Of Mystery (1994)
Aztecs: Reign of Blood and Splendor
Celt's: Europes People of Iron
China's buried Kingdoms
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs
Greece Temples, Tombs and Treasures
The Holy Land
Incas: Lords of Gold and Glory
The Magnificent Maya
Mesopotamia: The Mighty Kings. (1995)
Mound Builders and Cliff Dwellers
Pompeii: The Vanished City
Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile
Rome: Echoes of Imperial Glory
The Search for El Dorado
Southeast Asia: A Past Regained (1995)
Sumer: Cities of Eden
Vikings: Raiders From the North
Wonddrous realms of the Aegean

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page New Seven Wonders of the World has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'geocities\.com' (link(s): http://www.geocities.com/zacherystaylor/cultstructures.htm) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zachery. I see you've been expanding the Moai paragraph in Easter Island. Can I suggest you have a look at Moai itself? The idea behind the current structure is that we have a short paragraph in Easter Island that summarises the Moai article. Also you might want to have a look at some of the other sources, Thor Heyerdahl may have sold more books on Easter Island than everyone else combined, but unlike Metraux or Katherine Routledge his theories haven't held up well against DNA evidence. ϢereSpielChequers 07:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am a professional in the field (Aerospace engineering, and I understand space propulsion and nuclear weapon design and effects in detail). The Orion article is in fact fairly accurate - most of the {{fact}} tags are questioning statements that are directly taken from the sources which are already listed in the article, which are the project reports and other reliable sources about the project.

If you want to ask more specific questions on the article talk page, I'd be happy to answer them there. But if you're worried that it's generally inaccurate or a hoax, it's not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! You clearly know a lot about megaliths, but your edits to the Angkor Wat page puzzle me. Maybe I'm missing something. ;)

Firstly the categorisation of AW as a megalithic site: our article on megalithic sites seems to limit the term to ancient sites, presumably in order to exclude modern buildings which happen also to use big stones. But AW was built at around the same time as the great European cathedrals, so what makes it a megalithic site where those, I take it, are not?

Secondly, the categorisation as an archaeoastronomical site. Again AW hardly seems old enough to qualify - the List_of_archaeoastronomical_sites_sorted_by_country doesn't include other sites from that period. In any case, while I'm familiar with the arguments that the alignment and proportions of the temple reflect astronomical features, I don't know of any claims that astronomy was actually conducted there. If there are any, I'd like to add them to the article. :)

Cheers, Henry^Flower 10:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, Thanks for your additions to the AW article - the construction methods were a hole in the article I'd never quite managed to fill. I've made some changes which were mostly just tidying up, but I did take out a few things which didn't seem to be relevant - you might like to check the changes I made. Cheers, Henry^Flower 08:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Manetho King List is referenced on Khufu's page. This paragraph seems to use 'R. Kuper and F. Forster, "Khufu's 'mefat' expeditions into the Libyan Desert", Egyptian Archaeology 23, Autumn 2003, pp 25-28' as a source. I didn't check this myself but it seems more credible than the 23 year time frame for the construction which is why I mentioned the possibility. I could transfer the reference to the pyramid page but I chose not to do that since I didn't personally check it instead I put a link to Khufu's page in the sentence. If you have no further objection I'll put it back later. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You'll have to excuse me for not recognising the information you were bringing in, but that's only the same thing that will puzzle most readers. Definitely needs some link. Are you aware that in Khufu Manetho is referenced for 23 years at one point? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I'm sure this was well meant but it reads like an essay or a how-to guide and was not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. A great deal of it was opinion, written from a point of view (mainly the point of view of one or two books cited).

I have tried to make it more measured and neutral but I do not actually think that an article under this title is justified, since there is already an article called School violence, one section of which is headed "Prevention and intervention". I am minded to incorporate some of your text into that article and put in a redirect. Alarics (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Preventing school violence, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preventing school violence. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was reading through Preventing school violence and your version at User:Zacherystaylor/preventing school violence. I appreciate the work you're doing here, but there's a couple things it looks like you don't yet understand about Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and reliable sources. It's not a place to do your own synthesis or present your own ideas. The article you wrote looks like it'd be good as a magazine article, written by you, but it's full of stuff we can't use here at Wikipedia. And yes, here, other people are going to edit your work. Mericlessly. The minute you mention the word "censorship" a lot of the editors here will assume you're a kook and stop listening to anything you say. So it's best to avoid that altogether. (That probably sounds weird, but it's due to a long history of actual kooks showing up here to promote their new perpetual motion machine, and then crying "censorship!" when the page gets deleted.) Anyway, hopefully this will help you understand better how things go here. Let me know if you have any questions or need a hand with anything. For now, I'd recommend you focus on improving school violence rather than trying to start your own version of it. Friday (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like you're still not understanding. The deletion of this article does not mean that Wikipedia editors don't think preventing school violence would be a good thing. Many of the points you're making are simply not relevant. People are not talking about school violence as a general subject; they're talking about what is or is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. You've still given no reason why school violence and preventing school violence should be separate articles. Friday (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

If wikipedians can't tell the difference between censoring a perpetual motion machine and censoring violence prevention material there is something wrong here. There is a article on that and it censors false science so that real science can be reported. In the case of violence prevention it appears to be the other way arround and I have no doubt that in the long run it will be seen that way if there is a reasonable discusion. The material about preventing violence is more relevent than much of the other stuff on wikipedia. I may not be understanding everything but I'm not the only one. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I guess I'm not explaining myself very well. It's not that people think perpetual motion has something to do with violence- I was trying to explain why it's not useful to talk about censorship. You keep talking about what's a good cause, and what the best answer is, but I was trying to explain that Wikipedia is not for advocacy of any kind. I'm sure there's general agreement that school violence prevention is a viable topic for Wikipedia. Looking at school violence, there's already a section on that. What people are disagreeing on is whether there's any reason for a separate article specifically on prevention. The general approach is to split such things off only when they become too long for the main article. You'll get much further working with the article we already have, than trying to branch off and make your own. The deletion discussion is meant to be a discussion about how best to structure Wikipedia content, but you keep trying to make it about how to prevent school violence. Do you see the difference? Friday (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS Maybe this will help. It sounds like you want to write preventing school violence to present a different point of view than you see in school violence. That's a reasonable idea; it's just that this is not how things are done at Wikipedia. We don't write multiple articles on the same topic to present different points of view. Instead, all relevant points are view are included in the same article. This is part of why people don't want to keep your separate article. We're aiming for one neutral article presenting all relevant points of view- not articles advocating different positions. Friday (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have redirect The Fatima UFO Hypothesis again. It's a complete mess of an article. The non-proponent sources make no mention of the UFO theory (the article subject). The proponent sources are all published by Anomalist Books, which is not a reliable publisher. They do not have a reputation for fact-checking and related editorial oversight. Thus, while the article may appear well-sourced, it does not contain even a single citation to an on-topic reliable source. This brings up the related point that the article completely fails our notability requirements, as the topic does not seem to have received substantive coverage in independent reliable sources. I hope this helps better clarify why I have redirected the critically flawed article. Vassyana (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am reverting your edit again. If you have objections you should do so in the proper manner. There is a process for articles for deletions and you should know it better than me. This has been up for 4 months without objections to delete or redirect it without at least the usual 7 day discussion period is unreasonable. I may not have time to explain further right now but I will add more later on the talk page for the hypothesis or if there is an AfD request by then I'll add it there. There are plenty of sources cited by the authors of the trilogy plus original versions done by a different publisher and mention in other books as well some of which I can cite and more that I have heard of indirectly. This is notable and although it is considered fringe by many it is backed up by more research than either the skeptics or the religious people have done. Also it isn’t presented as fact it is presented as theory with a request for more research. This is as it should be you don’t figure out what is true by declaring you know it all and trying to stop the argument before anyone can prove you wrong. If either skeptics or believers decide what is or isn’t true without looking at the evidence this is pseudo science. Besides the advocates of this hypothesis don’t all agree on the explanation just that there is a legitimate mystery and it deserves more research. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

A redirect (which preserves the page's history for all to see) is not a deletion, and AfD isn't meant to decide upon redirects. The issue here isn't whether it is true or not. Given the lack of notabiity (do a Google search on "Fatima ufo" for an indication) I'd say the redirect is correct. Dougweller (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I strongly suggest you read the above. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok I asked you once to consult WP:CIVIL I now ask again. If you persist in these unfounded attacks on my personal philosophical positions I will take this matter to WP:ANI Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead I made a valid statement. You have been acting like a psedo-skeptic. Rather than review your work or look up information on this subject or any other you take offence. If you report me they may look into your history to see if my comment was valid. Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have been mentioned at WP:ANI. Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTc)

Could you be more specific about your concerns with my recent editing? I have no idea what you are talking about. I have taken nothing from any of my writings in my recent editing of Tiwanaku. In case of citations, there is a standard format such that they will be the same / uniform from publication to publication.Paul H. (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I am Not Paul Harmon. Doug Weller can vouch for the veracity of this statement. In fact, I neither know Paul Harmon personally nor have visited Tiwanaku.Paul H. (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zacherystaylor, I noticed in your recent contributions that you do quite a bit of vandal-fighting, and that your reverts are good. Would you like rollback rights so you can have an additional tool to assist you when dealing with vandals? Acalamari 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do some reverts when I'm not preparing new material for Wikipedia it may seem like that is most of what I do. I would be happy to try it thank you. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rollback granted. Remember, however, that rollback should be used to revert blatant vandalism/spam, and that using it in revert-wars or to revert edits you disagree with can lead to its removal...and note that some admins do not even give a warning before removing the right. If you would like to test the tool before using it to begin reverting vandalism, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. All this said, happy reverting! Acalamari 16:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I'll check into it another day for today I'll stick to the old way. Hopefully I won't need it much. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Point taken, you are right, people may get the wrong idea that these subjects are pseudoarchaeology, not just misused by pseudoarchaeologist. If you find any tags that are inappropriate its cool if you remove them. Jmm6f488 (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

First, please note that I have reverted your restoration of Preventing school violence. The most recent AfD resulted in a "merge" and I don't think it's right to simply restore the article without substantially changing it. Second, please stop adding links to this article in unrelated articles. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Really, please stop adding this article to every other article remotely, tangentially, possibly, maybe (but probably not) related. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are editing against consensus. This is considered disruptive. If you don't change your approach, you may find yourself blocked from editing. Why don't you focus your efforts on improving school violence rather than forking? Your fork has already been rejected at AFD. You won't get far by stubbornly refusing to work with others. Friday (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are still not understanding. This isn't about some gang of pro-gun POV-pushers suppressing things. The argument about your fork is an argument about how Wikipedia content should best be structured, but you keep trying to turn it into an argument about preventing school violence. If there is a neutrality problem at school violence, show me where and I'll try to help fix the problem. But if you want to make and own your own set of fork articles, you'll find that Wikipedia won't work well for you. Friday (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand that the presentation on this is terrible and very little is being done to improve this. When there are attempts to improve it leads to an enormous amount of arguing. It is true that I couldn't avoid being part of it but at least I read up on the subject. Gun rights advocacy isn't the only problem but it is a big part of it. Among academic sources there is an enormous amount of good material on this subject. The Mass Media is doing a horrible job addressing it actually making it worse instead of better. Wikipedia asked for the help of the public but when it involves a controversial subject argument leads to censorship. The most effective way to censor on Wikipedia is to argue it to death which is what is happening here. If Wikipedia is going to be just another propaganda machine it will only last until the public takes notice.

I’ve mentioned it before the mediation board. We’ll see what they make of it. If they come down strong on the side of the gun rights group without letting academic work be added one way or another then I’ll let people know. Denying censorship won’t make it go away. Also I let this go for over 6 months due to arguing and absolutely nothing was done to improve it. Instead of trying to merge it you just redirected it and there was someone ready to argue on that page too. If anything it may have gotten worse. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nothing's stopping you from putting well-sourced information into school violence, right? This is a more useful next step in my view than looking for mediation. I don't see where there's much of anything to mediate. The reason you encountered such resistance wasn't that you were trying to improve an article, it was that you were making a fork that almost everyone saw as unnecessary. If you improve school violence using relevant and well-sourced information, I seriously doubt you'll run into trouble. Friday (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you're putting so much effort into complaining about the alleged problem, and so little into improving school violence. Friday (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No matter what I do on this subject I meet endless arguing. Part of the reason I put the title “Preventing school violence” is that sincere people will be more interested if they know it is about prevention which they may see very little of. One of the biggest problems is that this article probably receives so little traffic if it was linked up better it would be more effective. Furthermore I don’t understand why your so concerned about preventing the separate page. Nor do you do anything to improve it. If I thought I would stop encountering resistance every time I do something I would have done much more months ago. Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

FYI I've added the following to the talk page of WikiProject Rational Skepticism - it seems others have encountered the same problem as you... 92.26.147.184 (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Simonm223's involvement in Global Consciousness Project should be urgently reviewed by the skeptic community. He is resorting to extremely biased and underhand tactics that will bring not only the skeptic community but Wikipedia itself into disrepute. I strongly suggest that you check out the interactions between Simonm223 and other editors on the Talk:Global Consciousness Project92.26.147.184 (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC) By the way this is not Zachary, but another very concerned editor92.26.147.184 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is welcome; however I am not familar with the Global Consciousness Project therefore I won't comment at least until I know more about it. If I get the chance perhaps I'll take a closer look but I have other things to do for the next few days. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

  User:Zacherystaylor/The Fatima UFO Hypothesis, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zacherystaylor/The Fatima UFO Hypothesis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Zacherystaylor/The Fatima UFO Hypothesis during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jimmie Briggs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmie Briggs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Your edit to Sacsayhuamán has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. The material appears to be substantially taken from: http://tiogatalk.blogspot.com/2009/10/sacsayhuaman-cuzco-cusco-peru.html. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. note: I am aware that you did not write this section and were just re-adding it to the article, but I hope this provides some reason as to why it was deleted. Frost.xyz | (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

There appears to be a misunderstanding. According to User:Doug Weller, in the history on August 30 2020 the alleged copyright violation was added in 2010, from "Ancient Cuzco: Heartland of the Inca" By Brian S. Bauer p 103. The version that I restored was from 2009. Furthermore, if cited properly, that should have been legal, under the fair use terms of copyright, but regardless, that's not what I restored.

Also, for the most part, what I restored was my own words. I didn't go through the history to check my original edit, which may have been altered by someone else, but I was the one who wrote it. The most likely explanation why tiogatalk.blogspot.com used the same words, for the most part, is because they cut and pasted excerpts from a Wikipedia article, including some of my writing along with writing from others. This is actually quite common, although most people doing this cite their source. Nevertheless, contributors to Wikipedia aren't concerned with that, although some might worry about credit, but I don't.

Feel free to check with Doug Weller, I'm sure he can confirm this and I talked to him numerous times when I was more active fourteen or so years ago, but I'm going to restore the edit. Thank you Zacherystaylor (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

PS your source doesn't cite Wikipedia as a source but it does provide a date, Sept. 2009; Here's the original edit for what I restored, for the most part, which was Feb. 2009, months before his post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sacsayhuam%C3%A1n&diff=prev&oldid=271404315

Zacherystaylor (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Frost.xyz@Zacherystaylor I agree, the blog was clearly copied. Interesting that it claims copyright 2011. That seems dishonest. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doug, how are you? Been a long time.

It seems dishonest, but it's trivial, I doubt if he made money off it, although he probably tried.

I'm curious about the history of that article though; there appears to be ten years of edits that were deleted which coincide with the alleged copyright violation from Brian S. Bauer's book.

Did someone delete ten years of edit history for a copyright violations? If so, it couldn't have been more than a page or so, which can easily be done under the fair use clause of copyright, assuming it was cited properly. And I was easily able to retrieve the Google excerpt from your summation of the edit, defeating the purpose, if that was the case. Zacherystaylor (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, I had no idea that the edit was originally from 2009; I must've skipped over the diff summary. So sorry about all the confusion !! Frost.xyz | (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

No problem, forget about it. However I suspect Bauer's book can be cited without violating copyright, especially the quote from Pedro Cieza de León, which is almost 500 years old, well beyond copyright. Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply