User talk:Cashen1

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Cashen1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Thank you for adding information about The Tower House! Please feel free to ask questions here, I will watch, - and look around. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Daniele Buetti, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Daniele Buetti was changed by Cashen1 (u) (t) deleting 8046 characters on 2010-01-14T08:58:35+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower House[edit]

Dear Cashen1, I've replied to you at the foot of my talkpage. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your brilliant research on the Tower House. It has been a joy to read your additions to our ongoing conversations...what a pleasure it must have been to discover! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cashen1, Dr. Blofeld, Gareth E Kegg, Gerda Arendt, and Tim riley: Dear Cashen 1 - Thank you very much for the absolute mine of information you sent regarding the Tower House. First and foremost, it has been an absolutely fascinating read for those of us working on the house's Wikipedia article. Most unfortunately, I have had to remove the reference to your thesis from the article itself. Wikipedia has strict rules regarding verifiability [1] which do not allow the use of unpublished sources as they cannot be checked by readers. Having said that, the material you provided is so valuable for studying and understanding the house that, with your permission, I should very much like to place it on the Tower House article's Talkpage. This would allow readers to access the material without it breaching Wikipedia's protocols. Would you be kind enough to let me know if this will be acceptable to you. With thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Cashen is willing KJP1 the thesis could always be uploaded in Wikisource and linked at the bottom of the article, provided that it is licensed appropriately.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cashen1, Dr. Blofeld, Gareth E Kegg, Gerda Arendt, and Tim riley:

Dear Cashen - I'm replying here, rather than on my own Talkpage, for ease. Can I say that I understand and appreciate your frustration. Having been contacted, at my request, and having then provided a mountain of fascinating information, it will be extremely vexing to learn that the information cannot be used in the article on the Tower House. But the Wikipedia rules on verifiability are strict and the policy explicitly states that "Unpublished materials are not considered reliable." This is not a reflection on your research, but the means by which Wikipedia tries to maintain its status as an online encyclopedia of record. It was, of course, my error in failing to think through the implications of your thesis not being published, and I sincerely apologize for this. Having said that, it is not the case that your material cannot be used. With your permission, I shall include it on the article's Talk page, where it will be available to every reader of the article. But, if it is used in the article itself, the article will not be promoted to Featured Status and, at some future point, the material will be deleted as an infringement of Wikipedia policy. I am truly sorry for any distress I have caused. With best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sums up Wikipedia's rules precisely. Not published = not citable = not usable in the article text. But the superb research can, and Heaven knows should, be made easily viewable on the article talk page. I have been hugely impressed with Cashen's marvellous contributions, and readers of Wikipedia will have continuing reason to be grateful for them. It is such a pity that for very sound reasons of policy the research has to go on the talk page rather than in the article, but the essential thing is that it will be easily accessible to all on Wikipedia. Casual visitors to the article won't see it, but anyone with any serious interest will follow it to the talk page. Thank you, Cashen: we are in your debt. Tim riley talk 19:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in putting it on the talk page when you can have a wikisource link at the bottom of the article itself and but the thesis on wiki source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that option. Excellent! Tim riley talk 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]