User talk:Inactiveedit

Welcome!
Hello, Astrawishkap, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A summary of some important site 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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

One more thing:
 * Minor edits are those that add or remove little content, and mainly consists of undoing undeniable vandalism or fixing grammar, spelling, or formatting errors.

None of your edits so far have been minor. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your edit on Witchcraft. Not that it wasn't good, cited information, but it most likely belongs in the article on Witches. Take care.

Its odd that some people constantly cancel out even well cited contributions on the topic of witchcraft - even when perfectly valid if the contribution has something pro-witchcraft...while other parts of the article that provide negative and lopsided Christian views are left as is even if poorly sourced or poorly cited...quite interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrawishkap (talk • contribs)


 * Must be a conspiracy! ... Seriously, if you have a problem with any parts of the article or with any sources used, etc, (and if you don't want to be bold and edit the article accordingly, or if you do and get reverted) -- point it out on the article's talk page. It helps to be specific, then no one can argue with you if you're right. Also remember to assume good faith. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's preference for sources tends to go:
 * Mainstream academic secondary and tertiary sources (especially stuff from companies ABC-CLIO, Brill Publishers, Mohr Siebeck Verlag, Oxford University Press, Wiley-Blackwell, Walter de Gruyter)
 * Mainstream journalistic sources (newspapers, not blogs)
 * Books by recognized authorities (usually meaning figures we have articles about, where they are described as authorities about that particular topic)
 * Other books that are not self-published (though some of them may be trumped by particular primary sources on a case-by-case basis)
 * Primary sources (such as Gardner's Witchcraft Today, Marx's Das Kapital, or Pliny's Natural History)
 * Anything else (and "anything else" might be removed)
 * Mainstream academia holds that mythology concerning witchcraft between the Crusades and the the Industrial revolution was almost entirely made up by individuals who identified as Christian. As a result, a lot of written material about witchcraft is about the disasterous persecution of imagined witches during the early modern era.  Most religious scholars (and practitioners of magic, and followers of magical religions such as Wicca) also distinguish between witchcraft (magical practices that are often socially subversive or at least perceived as such), Wicca (a 20th century pagan religion), and paganism in general (an umbrella category for a variety of distinct religions).  This distinction is why this edit was reverted.
 * Primary sources are almost only used to summarize their own claims as just that -- claims. Thus, this edit was reverted because Gardner's claims only cover his beliefs, not necessarily what mainstream historians will tell you.  "Mainstream" is a key word here.  Margaret Murray is largely rejected by mainstream historians because her work consisted of cherry picked bits of a few trials out of hundreds.  That's partly why this edit was reverted.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I apologize for what I said in my edit summary here, specifically that part: "consider not making such huge changes when you're still new". Edits can be easily reverted so making a mess in good faith is not a problem if it doesn't happen too often. Being WP:BOLD is okay and encouraged. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit because it plagiarized from this website. Never use the exact text from a source, always paraphrase. Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations. Also, Surnamedb.com and KryssTal.com fall under the "anything else" category I mentioned earlier, as self-published sources in particular. The persons who put up Surnamedb.com and KryssTal.com are not recognized authorities in their fields, so their personal websites are not accepted as reliable sources. Ancestry.com is a user generated source, which are sources we do not use because anyone could have added whatever they wanted to it (for this reason, we also do not allow people to cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, looking into it further, none of the sources you cited explicitly connects "witch" to "Wych" or the other surnames or place names. They appear to be false cognates.  Wikipedia does not use original research, so every bit of new information must be supported by the sources cited for them.  This is another reason why it's best to just paraphrase sources.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No further talks required - you all can surely have your ways. Thanks!

Hi
Hi, I'm trying to improve this article: Witches of Anaga. But I speak Spanish. I would translate the Spanish word El Bailadero into English, to correct the title of the article. In Spanish is Brujas del Bailadero de Anaga, in English: ''Witches of ¿El Bailadero? of Anaga''. Can you help me? Thank You.--83.59.137.55 (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)