User talk:Furthering thought

Ley lines
A fascinating subject, but I think you haven't grasped what Wikipedia is about (no reason why you should have yet either). Basically, we are a collaborative encyclopedia with our articles based on what we call reliable and verifiable sources. We have a lot of guidelines and 3 core polices which you should read. WP:VERIFY -- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" because we are not here to prove the truth about anything but to report what sometimes conflicting sources have to say about a subject. WP:OR -" Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources ", and that is what I think you want to do. And WP:NPOV, "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". I mentioned reliable sources, see WP:RS. I've removed your edit from the talk page, but I was very impressed that you went to the help desk and asked about it. That's the beginning of being a good editor. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I'm keen to contribute and do it right. I went to the helpdesk because I could not understand why some Wiki pages have extensive discussions but others have a 'non-forum' banner, yet they are apparently of equal weight. Compare 'Ley Lines' to 'knocking on wood'. Both are deeply grey, and have strong pagan associations, but most religions did a good job of wiping out pagan traditions, and there isn't much research because no-one will fund it. I'm going to withdraw my Ley line material, though will see what can be said about it that will fit the main page. You're right; in my naivity, I had assumed that the 'talk' pages were for discussion of ideas and research gaps, but their purpose seems editorial - for some, but editorial AND speculation for others. I'll try the academic circuits for leys, and come back when I've written a citation! Lastly, would Wiki be even more powerful if it highlighted the top few questions that represented the key gaps in our knowledge for each topic, as well as the vastness of the knowledge we are confident in? Furthering thought (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=626318037 your edit] to Netherlandish Proverbs may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Verdana,sans-serif;" title="Hij draagt de dag met manden uit">(nl) || To waste one's time Compare: "to carry coals to Newcastle" and "to sell sand in the desert" || Middle||[[Image:NP-78.