User talk:Coner Stone

Welcome
Hello, Coner Stone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your edits to Allegorical interpretations of Genesis
A lot of new editors don't understand what Wikipedia is and think they can add their own ideas or knowledge to an article. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reporting what reliable sources (click on WP:RS to see how we define these) say about a subject. In this case, you would need reliable sources making the arguments about the Bible that you are making. What you are doing we call 'original research (click on WP:RS) and it's one of our policies that this is not acceptable. Another point - when you find your edits are being reverted, you should normally stop and discuss them on the talk page. Otherwise it appears that you are WP:Edit warring (click on that). And before you add again, you also need to read WP:3RR. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your email. It's reminded me to look the article again. The discrepancies section had two major problems. First, it was unsourced, probably just the research of one or more editors which makes it original research which we don't allow. Secondly, no connection was made to the subject of the article. I've removed the section entirely, which I'm afraid rather means your work, although hopefully interesting for you, isn't relevant. I'll add that the paper you linked to,, would not be considered an acceptable source. Even a PhD paper wouldn't automatically qualify. The 1875 Haley book would in some circumstances (context/circumstances are always important), you'd probably need to actually say 'Haley wrote' or something like that, not state it as fact. The website also doesn't seem to meet our WP:RS criteria - see particularly WP:SPS. Not always easy to decide what is acceptable or not, and we have forums like WP:RSN to get a broader discussion when someone is unhappy. But, as I've said, the section didn't belong in the article anyway. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)