User talk:AShipway
Welcome and introduction[edit]
Hi, AShipway. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person by golly! And this real person (that would be me), wants to say welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've made an account! Thanks for joining; you're on your way to making some great contributions.
Because I've noticed you've just joined, I wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. Any questions are fine, nothing is too silly (we've heard them all). Now, the tips below - hop on them - they should help you begin editing. Best of luck! JoeSmack Talk 03:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. (You'll want to sign your name with these four tildes ~~~~ when you leave something on a talk page to help know who you are!) Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia! |
P.S. If you just feel like poking around, Wikipedia:Help is a good place to start. :)
Primary sources[edit]
I have reverted your additions since they rely on primary sources from Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. According to Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and no original research, content must be sourced from secondary sources, and those that are considered reliable, which are those that have editorial oversight. Try using journals, or books from academic publishers. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- AShipway, in your revert you noted "reason for undo was not in accordance with wikipedia policies", but actually it is your edits that are not within policy. I'm trying to be polite, and I'm asking you to read the policies, but I'll point to some specifically. The no original research policy states "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's documents are primary sources, and need to rely on secondary sources to make those interpretive claims. Also read reliable sources to discover what types of sources are acceptable; for example personal websites and blogs are not acceptable because there is no editorial oversight. The Baha'i pages have been kept to the utmost of Wikipedia's standards, so please try to also keep them the same. Regards, - Jeff3000 (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, that the current article already uses primary sources is no reason to include more. In fact, what should be done to improve the article is to remove the current dependence on the primary sources. If you believe a section on the Holy Spirit is essential, it should not be hard to find such references in secondary sources which argue the same point. Some secondary sources that may be of interest is Peter Smith's "Introduction to the Baha'i Faith" that is published by Cambrige University Press. Furthermore, you state that "The content I added is not original research and is clearly stated in the source material." but that is besides the point because it is from a primary source. Any inclusion of primary source material from religious sources that requires some sort of interpretive claim (and all of Baha'u'llah's writings do, since he himself stated have 72 meanings etc) require a secondary source, otherwise it is considered original research. Please read the policy page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is no official or non-official guardian, but there is Wikipedia policy and all editors are expected to add content that abides by Wikipedia policy, and I've pointed you to it. In addition to no original research, there is neutral point of view, which states that content should be written without bias (i.e. in this case not in the viewpoint that the Baha'i view is correct, but that it is just the Baha'i view), and veriability which states that Wikipedia is not after Truth (capital T), but instead what is verifiable in sources that are considered to be reliable. Regards, -- 05:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, there are no groups, Baha'i or otherwise, but individuals who take an interest. I know that Wikipedia can be daunting, but you have to be bold in adding content, and if there are disagreements, then they are on the talk page. I suggest reading the policy pages, then reading some secondary sources and adding content referenced by those secondary sources and you should definitely be fine. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editing is a collaborative effort. Many editors take an interest (via watchlist) of hundreds of articles. Any major changes or additions to articles should be done with some level of consideration and co-operative effort with editors that have proceeded. Not Ownership...common courtesy. Editor:Jeff3000 is not speaking just for himself or his personal involvement with God in the Bahai Faith. One other note....This discussion and its counterpart at User:jeff's talk page should have taken place at the article talk page. Its the logical place. Fellow editors shouldnt have to go here and there trying to figure out who said what and when did they say it.--Buster7 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, there are no groups, Baha'i or otherwise, but individuals who take an interest. I know that Wikipedia can be daunting, but you have to be bold in adding content, and if there are disagreements, then they are on the talk page. I suggest reading the policy pages, then reading some secondary sources and adding content referenced by those secondary sources and you should definitely be fine. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is no official or non-official guardian, but there is Wikipedia policy and all editors are expected to add content that abides by Wikipedia policy, and I've pointed you to it. In addition to no original research, there is neutral point of view, which states that content should be written without bias (i.e. in this case not in the viewpoint that the Baha'i view is correct, but that it is just the Baha'i view), and veriability which states that Wikipedia is not after Truth (capital T), but instead what is verifiable in sources that are considered to be reliable. Regards, -- 05:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, that the current article already uses primary sources is no reason to include more. In fact, what should be done to improve the article is to remove the current dependence on the primary sources. If you believe a section on the Holy Spirit is essential, it should not be hard to find such references in secondary sources which argue the same point. Some secondary sources that may be of interest is Peter Smith's "Introduction to the Baha'i Faith" that is published by Cambrige University Press. Furthermore, you state that "The content I added is not original research and is clearly stated in the source material." but that is besides the point because it is from a primary source. Any inclusion of primary source material from religious sources that requires some sort of interpretive claim (and all of Baha'u'llah's writings do, since he himself stated have 72 meanings etc) require a secondary source, otherwise it is considered original research. Please read the policy page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
NPA[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Jeff3000. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)