User talk:David gregg

Welcome
Hello, David gregg, 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:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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 my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Aubrey Holes
I'm afraid I've reverted your edits here. As the welcome message says, all material must be cited to what we refer to as reliable sources, please read WP:RS. As editors, we cannot add our own ideas/thoughts/research to articles, this is what we call original research, WP:OR. In other words, a Wikipedia article is very different from an ordinary journal article or an essay, where the author can make arguments, try to prove a point, insert their own idea based on the work of others, etc. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You need sources that explicitly, for instance, make the point (with which I agree) that " the possible transmission of Egyptian myths to neolithic Wiltshire is problematical as is the idea that the Egyptians / Pythagoreans and Aubrey Circle builders independently developed an eclipse prediction method," or " The proposed Aubrey construction heptagon may also define other Stonehenge features." Articles should normally not use 'we' or ask questions, or use language such as "very curiously". It can be a big learning curve for those of us with an academic background. Basically our articles report on what other people have said explicitly about a subject. Have you read WP:OR yet? And this 'heptagon', has this been published somewhere and if so where? You should also use WP:Edit summaries explaining your edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)