User talk:*Castle&Gardens*

Welcome!

Hello, *Castle&Gardens*! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 03:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

An summary of important policies and guidelines

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Minor edits are those that add or remove little content, and mainly consists of undoing undeniable vandalism or fixing grammar, spelling, or formatting errors.

Also, edit summaries should reflect what actions you're really taking. Pretending to make grammar changes while sneaking in POV-statements is dishonest. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Christian eschatology. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use editor knowledge, it only summarizes mainstream published academic or journalistic sources. The Bible is a primary source and so is only cited to present context for claims based on secondary and tertiary sources.

Also, please read Common noun and Proper noun. Proper nouns are pretty much unique names. Eschatology, theology, future, etc, are not proper nouns. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you Ian.thomson that I used Biblical Scripture as a reference... but you would have only seen that if you had waited until I had finished editing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proper%20noun — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Castle&Gardens* (talk • contribs)

As I just explained: the Bible is a primary source, and so is only used to provide context for information from other sources. As I explained before that: Wikipedia does not use original research, which would include interpreting the Bible.

In other words, if you want to make a claim about what the Bible says, you need to find another source (a mainstream academic source). Wikipedia does not accept a user's claimed expertise in the matter, it sticks to published professionals.

And yes, as that Merriam Webster link explains, proper nouns are particular persons, places, or things. For example, "Walmer Castle" is a particular castle, but "castle" is not, even if it is referring to Walmer Castle -- Walmer Castle is a particular instance of a castle, but castles are not particular. The words "concentric wall," "bastions," and "cannons" are by no means particular, even if they refer to a set of those non-particular objects. If you feel that expertise should be at least considered, my degree is in English.

Also, do not use Roman numerals for dates, per the Manual of Style's section on dates. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes Ian.Thomson... but I have other sources by published Authors other than the Bible, which I was still going to reference... but no one can every get anything done if people keep undoing. I honestly think Wikipedia should stop with the undo Button and instead allow a refute page which certain Posters highlights by different colours.

In regards to Proper Nouns I am very well educated in their use and find that it their use can be seen to be lacking in a certain Countries... I am aware for that reason which Countries any Poster is from on their usage of the English Language.

Also am I to believe that you are a Cyber-Stalker? Or is there any particular reason why you are following my edits? Are you the Wiki-Police? Or perhaps a friend of Julian himself? Do tell I am infinitely intrigued... — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Castle&Gardens* (talk • contribs)

I explained the reasons why your edits were reverted to help you learn how to ensure that your edits are less likely to be reverted. Instead, you chose to carry out edits that were reverted for almost the same reasons.

To be clear: If your edits had cited non-primary sources and did not capitalize random common nouns, I would not have had those reasons to revert them. Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results generally isn't the best plan.

You are still capitalizing random common nouns (e.g. countries, poster). A proper noun is a name (New York City, Bugs Bunny), while a common noun is a type or something of a type, even if that type or something of a type includes named individuals (city, rabbit). You seem to have proper nouns confused with any noun that refers to something that could possibly be named, rather than nouns that are names.

Personal attacks are not allowed here, and that's listed in the welcome message at the top of this page. This site is more interested in users who are able to cooperate with and learn from others than users who are (over-)confident in what they think they know. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks for that Ian.Thomson, and that's good to know that there are people here that like to co-operate and not be full up their own (!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Castle&Gardens* (talk • contribs)

I'm actually quite cooperative with editors who stick to published sources.

Please actually check with sources before changing names. The sources cited in the Borley Rectory article use the name Foyster. Your edits there were better about not capitalizing common nouns, though there were still a few mistakes (such as "ghost historians"). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you an Admin Ian.Thomson? As for Borley Rectory, Foster is the correct name, then again one would only know that if one had done research from actual Research Books and not mis-spelled Websites on the Internet. There are no F Oysters in Borley Rectory SMH! Thanks... still not sure why you are following my every edit though.

*Castle&Gardens*, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi *Castle&Gardens*! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Missvain (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)