User talk:Mr GoLd FaCe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Mr GoLd FaCe, 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 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A summary of some guidelines you may find useful[edit]

Regarding your edits to Camael[edit]

I'm sorry, but http://home.planet.nl/~rook0152/Camael.html does not meet the reliable source guidelines. Self-published sources (meaning sources that just anyone can publish) are rarely accepted. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So you delete info because it can not be proven? Well delete all info about all angels and everything that is connected to religion then. Nothing is reliable. The Bible or Koran is not a reliable source! Half of what was written in the bible has been dis proven by science.. I see an empty article about something. Why would you delete info about it?

Don't take this so personally. The website that you used does not meet this site's guidelines for reliable sources. Wikipedia does not decide what is "true" or false, it simply summarizes what accepted sources say about a topic, and lets the reader decide. Modern websites that anyone can make usually are not accepted unless the website is by a recognized authority. Ancient religious texts are accepted in certain contexts as representations of past and current beliefs (whether those beliefs are correct or not are for the reader to decide). Also, if you check the article's history, another editor removed that information. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not taking it personally ;) I'm just wondering why information is not recognized as authentic just because it comes from a different site then some grand company's. What can I do so I can add the info and keep the guidelines of wikipedia? If I would add the book of Judas would that be good? Or how about Henoch? It's written, just like many books are. If you read the Necronomicon you can also say that the source is not reliable because the book is written by one man. But still it is believed by many. So are the satanic bible and many many other books and websites. And those books and websites are used as source and reference on Wikipedia. So why is something on a site, founded by someone that did his research, any different? I do hope you can help me get this on Wiki because the words are true to what Camaël is believed to be. If Camaël is true is not my problem, I simply want to educate the world.

The easiest way to add the info would be to find a different source, such as a published book (the article actually lists a good many). Google books has a lot, just make sure that the book comes from a respectable publishing company (and not a pay-to-print-anything site like Lulu). Here's a search for Camael on it, bringing up a particularly good source, Gustav Davidson's Dictionary of Angels. Davidson had to go through a reputable publisher that chose his work because he wasn't just making things up.
We already have articles about the Gospel of Judas, the Book of Enoch, the Necronomicon, and Satanic Bible. Those works have articles because they are considered notable by these site guidelines. They can be used as sources to describe their contents, or their author's views on a subject (if relevant).
For example, in the Samyaza article, we do discuss what the Book of Enoch has to say about Samyaza, because it is a notable source for beliefs about Samyaza, not because the book just exists. However, we do not discuss the Book of Enoch in, say, History of the Middle East because the text is not accepted by mainstream historians. We do not bring "The Covenant of Samyaza" by the Order of the Left Hand Path into the Samyaza article, because they have yet to appear in any academic works, in the news, or in anything else that would make them notable. The OLHP did not go through anyone else to publish their work, but just posted it on the net. We don't accept stuff by just anyone.
Basically, if a source has an article, it's probably an acceptable source within the right context. If it does not have an article, it is acceptable if it has some mainstream group backing it up. All a personal website has is its author, and if they are not a recognized authority, we can't include them. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)