User talk:MartinP991

Hi MartinP991 - Your recent edit at Y Garn Goch is interesting, and indeed plausible, but such a significant claim really needs a reference. Are you able to provide one? thanks Geopersona (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Geopersona
 * My only references are a 150 page book, and a fairly substantial website dedicated to Garn Goch, neither currently in the public domain.
 * TBH, I'm not sure about loading the page with more background, but I guess I have to go further down that road, if the theory is to be at all credible. Any thoughts?MartinP991 (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again (and welcome to Wikipedia editing!), (by the way you can indent your replies by using : at the start of your sentence(s) and :: as I've done here to further indent my response - it makes it easier to read conversations) Is the book privately published and restricted circulation? If not, you can use the 'cite book' option (under templates at top left of this text area, and just fill in the detail. Some editors will reverse changes that are made to existing articles if they're not evidenced, citing Wikipedia policy that information should be referenced. Bland, straightforward info is less likely to be challenged than something which turns on its head, an accepted explanation! Though it seems to me that your edits are in good faith, it can be difficult on occasion to determine if a particular editor is simply pushing their own point of view - I've had one or two of mine reverted or at least questionned until I've been able to demonstrate the source of my tweaks/additions to an article. Might the information you'd added be found elsewhere, in the public domain? Does it originate from MP-P and his team? cheers Geopersona (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. I have no shortage of academic and other authoritative references in the book - over 300 of them. I've got an MA Medieval History so know how to do this stuff (!), but, as ever, it's a multi-faceted and multi-layered argument, so once you start it's hard not to end up with an entry of easily 2,000 words - and 10,000 without trying too hard!
 * The book is privately published, and can be bought from me, but at some point I will open it up for public sale (not that anyone will read it).
 * I guess it comes down to deciding whether to do a well referenced 2,000 word version, or not, and on balance I suppose I ought to, not least because I am absolutely convinced of the veracity of my argument - but then I would be, wouldn't I?!MartinP991 (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth taking a look at About and in particular Verifiability as regards what is and is not appropriate when referencing material. Note in particular that privately/self-published material doesn't fall into that category for reasons set out there. In my own domain, there is material which I am fairly confident is true and accurate but for which I cannot find suitable references and so - frustratingly - it has had to stay out of the pages of Wikipedia! cheers Geopersona (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll read both and take it all in. Most helpful!MartinP991 (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've done it. See the Garn Goch Archaeology entry. I'd welcome your thoughts.MartinP991 (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)MartinP991 (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

HELLO GEOPERSONA Can you help me please? I have researched an ancient monument in Wales called Garn Goch for 5 years. I have established a not for profit charity. I have created a website and written a 150 page book. I have the support of archaeological trusts. I have produced a deeply researched and referenced summary specifically for Wikipedia. Last year I amended the existing (and brief) Y Garn Goch page. All my additions were unilaterally and totally removed. In January I created a new page, Garn Goch, so as not to touch the existing page. I uploaded the deeply researched and referenced summary specifically for Wikipedia. It was unilaterally and totally removed.

This seems to me to be nothing but intellectual vandalism. I do not know who is doing it, or why. Nor do I know how to engage with whoever it is to discuss their issues.

PLEASE HELP.

Martin

(the above was added by MartinP991 talk, 3rd March 2022)


 * Hi again Martin - just quickly - don't forget to sign your posts, even on your own talk page, so that anyone reading can immediately see who has posted material; it makes conversations easier to follow. As to the substance, I'll attempt to give the best advice I can here. You can see who reverted the page to an earlier state at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garn_Goch&diff=1069261981&oldid=1069238436 - it is User:Onel5969 but any other editor might have taken a similar approach - I'd advise you not take it personally and not to see it as 'intellectual vandalism' but rather the action of an editor seeking to maintain the integrity of the encyclopaedia. You can see from their user page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onel5969 that they are an experienced Wikipedia (WP) editor.
 * I originally set up the page 'Garn Goch' in 2010 as a redirect to the page 'Y Garn Goch' (although incidentally, I'd have done it the other way round these days since Garn Goch is the name by which it is more commonly referred to by English speakers). It is customary in Wikipedia not to redevelop redirects into their own articles as you end up with two competing articles which leads to confusion. The hapless person who comes upon one or the other will not know which way to turn nor indeed will any subsequent editors. So it looks to me that One15969's actions were simply following good WP practice. You can always raise matters with other editors on their talk page but I don't think that will get you where you want to be in this instance.
 * Now as the page history for 'Y Garn Goch' records, it was WP editor Lopifalko who reverted your additions there back on the 23rd December and has given his reasons in the edit summary. He too is a very experienced editor well-versed in the practice and customs of Wikipedia. He particularly cites this WP policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought and is right to do so. Do please take a fresh look at it. Whatever the merits of your arguments, and I personally find them interesting and plausible, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. This is a longstanding WP position and for good reason - without that policy, you inevitably end up with an unholy mix of the good, the bad and the downright crazy. In good time, your own work may be reviewed or otherwise covered by third parties in a book or journal and it would then be appropriate for someone - but not you because you are too closely involved with it - to add material to the (Y) Garn Goch main article from that secondary source. I can understand that this might be frustrating and disappointing - there have been many others who would wish to publish certain material in Wikipedia (myself included!) unable to do so for similar reasons. That said, there may be elements of what you had written that can be reinserted but they must be verifiable; rely on good secondary sources and contain no personal judgements.
 * A final personal observation (you can make them on a talk page!) - Wikipedia is an odd environment; it's a motley collection of volunteers from all around the world who may do a little or a huge amount within its pages but who never (or at least very rarely) meet in the real world. Casual vandals apart (almost all of these are just IP addresses rather than those who have established a WP account and name), the vast majority are here to do their best to improve the encyclopaedia, in a host of different ways. We may build up images of our fellow editors and cast some as friends and some as villains on the basis of very limited knowledge but I remind myself from time to time that we'd likely all get on well together with a pint or two if sat in the bar at the Castle Hotel in Llandovery or its equivalent elsewhere! thanks Geopersona (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)