Talk:St. William Parish (Lawncrest)

Original Research
Almost the entire bulk of the article, as currently written, appears to be in violation of Wikipedia guidelines on no original research. There are no independent reliable sources of any kind provided for the text -- let alone any in-line citations. The only reference is an external link to the parish website. (Please note that all Wikipedia articles must be adhere to these policies.) Therefore, I have tagged the article for Original Research and Referencing problems. These tags should be removed only after the problems have been addressed. This means that all material within the article must be attributable to a reliable published source and I'm asking that those references be demonstrated. The article has remained in this unencyclopedic form since its creation -- and if these issues are not addressed, then all of the the unreferenced text will need to be removed. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added dates, where "WHEN" was asked, and they've been deleted - again.


 * I've undone edits by others that removed significant information, only because said individual thought it was "too much info"...oh well, this is why people do not get proper information.


 * There is not any material within this page that can be resource cited on here from publicly available materials other than what has been already linked. It is either first hand knowledge from my family's 70+ years within the parish, my own 35 years in the parish or directly from Parish Records that are not published for the public to research anywhere.


 * All photos posted on this page were taken by ME specifically for this wiki page, including the one you deleted from 2009.


 * If it is in that much of a violation, then delete the entire page completely. It will be of no loss to me. I am not spending any more time on this page. It was created over 2 years ago, edited significantly by me to provide the proper info for those wanting to know the history of the parish, and yet not cited until recently for issues.


 * Meanwhile, anyone can post stupid and vulgar comments on this and many other pages, and it goes unnoticed by the "powers to be". Gotta love it!


 * Again, I'd sooner you just delete the page than waste any more of my time.


 * Regards


 * marburg79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg79 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your work and intentions, Marburg79. And I understand your frustration. However, encyclopedic articles cannot be written through "personal" experience or internal knowledge of the contributor. As I am sure you understand, all editors on Wikipedia are essentially anonymous, i.e. anyone can register under any name and say that they are anyone. Therefore, we simply cannot take any editor's statement that something is true because they say it is. All information that we submit must be sourced and verifiable. So that even years from now, when we contributors have moved on, the accuracy of an encyclopedic article can always be verified independently by interested people. These sources do not have to be available on-line -- old newspaper, magazine and journal articles are often cited -- but they must be reliable sources that can be accessed. If you wish, we can move the unsourced portions of this article into your personal space for now (rather than be completely deleted) while you gather proper published sources -- for example, in old newspaper articles. Individuals who wish to share their own personal knowledge should publish a book or a magazine article -- but Wikipedia is not the place for that -- rather it is a global repository of verified information. Regards. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)