User talk:*Castle&Gardens*

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, 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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Castle&Gardens* (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not an admin, and I do not need to be -- I'm another volunteer who is concerned with ensuring the encyclopedia's quality. I would like for you to be able to contribute without correction, but you keep carrying out problematic edits.  Granted, your edits are becoming less problematic, so why don't we just focus on and hope for continued improvement?  That would be more in line with WP:Assume good faith than being so argumentative.
 * You need sources to demonstrate that Foster is the correct name. The sources cited in the article (which are not just random websites) say Foyster, as does The Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology by Paul Kurtz, The Guinness Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits by Rosemary Guiley, The Spirit Book by Raymond Buckland, Paranormal North East by Darron Ritson, and so on.  The original proceedings from the Society for Psychical Research (why anyone cares about Borley Rectory) uses the name Foyster.
 * You appear to be disagreeing with anything I say out of contrarianism rather than actual knowledge. Foster is a more common name than Foyster, and Foyster could, in other instances, be a misspelling of Foster -- But that is not the case here, as a quick examination of any of the sources shows. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian.Thomson, all the links you added are digital. Wikipedia is a free Encyclopedia, and anyone can edit.
 * Those links are digital copies of published books, and that does not disqualify their use. In fact, that makes it easier to verify their contents.
 * That Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit justifies my actions as much as yours. While anyone can edit, anyone else can undo those edits if they are not of sufficient quality.  We have social contracts to ensure the quality of articles, encourage cooperation between editors, and remove editors who fail in both counts -- WP:Competence is required.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Christian eschatology, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Quit lying in your edit summaries, and quit marking all your edits as minor
No sane and rational person with half a brain could possibly think that this edit added a citation, or that this edit added sons, or that you added a mention of Santa when you once again screwed up capitalization, or that you added a university here. Don't say you were going to do those things later -- you lied, plain and simple. Those lies make it really hard to not think that you're just a common troll we should block. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a Troll Ian, if Ian is your real name. I am just mirroring. You do know what that is. Actually I am beginning to find your following me to my every edit quite amusing... I am going to do a bit of a personal reading for you... I think you are either a) a single male b) attached but with a very boring other half. I am honestly not a Troll but I do care for the purity and correctness of the edits in Wikipedia. I find it hard to find evidence of NOE... In fact it is misrepresented as being from the King James Version. Which I, as an avid Bible reader, can assure you it IS NOT. But seriously, I shall pour you a drink coz tis late and I need one... So let you and I have an adult conversation ~ What would you like to drink? Eagerly awaiting your response :) Moi — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Castle&Gardens* (talk • contribs)
 * You do realize that the Bible wasn't written in 17th century English, right? Noe is how the name is spelled in other languages, and is probably the closest transcription of how the name is represented in Greek (Νῶε).  And if you are an avid Bible reader, you would understand the importance of not lying, which is what you did in those links I provided.  Wikipedia does not tolerate disruption to make a point.
 * Also:

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Hi Ian, I am not attacking other editors ~ Lol Wow, since when is having a virual drink attacking other editors... I didn't say cold, it can be a hot one if you like... hmmm, sorry if I offended you, it wasn't my intention, but shows how much is lost in the cold hard written text. P.s. I don't have a MAJOR EDIT BUTTON so I can only click on a minor edit one... So Carpe Diem huh! Moi

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for refusal to abide by simple requests from others, for deliberately using misleading edit summaries to mask your editing, and for refusal to stop making disruptive edits after polite requests to do so. This is a 1 week block. If you return from the block, and continue the same behavior, it will become permanent. If you wish to be unblocked before the week expires, use the unblock template to request it, but be sure to indicate that you understand why you are blocked, and that you intend to change your behavior if you are unblocked. -- Jayron 32 01:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me you block me Jayron32, without even speaking to me first. Ian.Thomson has be undoing every single edit I have made. Explain to me why he is the only one who has followed my every edit? Targeting. I made a complaint in the Teahouse. I am new to Wiki and this is how the 'editors' operate. No wonder the page is just spewing mis-information, because the people with the actual knowledge just get their research removed by keyboard warriors. I suggest you remove the Block and Apologise, but since you are likely friends with said Ian.Thomson there is no chance of that.


 * I've never met him. If you think the block is inappropriate, use the unblock template as I note above.  -- Jayron 32 01:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for getting back to me. I will do so Thanks.