User talk:Rik na

May 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Holy well, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Holy well. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read your reason for deleting this entry again and feel the following. Firstly, the sources cited are not only correct in the context of the article contributed, but are widely known and accepted within the field. As such I find myself questioning your reasons for suggesting otherwise and can only suggest Wells perhaps fall outside your area of expertise. As such you might benefit from asking someone with knowledge of this specialist field to assist you in moderating this entry in future. However, I don’t see the point in re-submitting this article until this happens. Additionally as the entry appears not to have been accepted by Wikipedia I make clear that I reject the GNU licence terms that would allow its future inclusion in the encyclopaedia and any 'discussion' page. If I misunderstood the situation and your criticism pertained to my failure to follow a specific guideline it might have been more helpful if you outlined exactly where I had gone wrong instead of a blanket delete policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rik na (talk • contribs)

Hi, Rik. The books you listed were acceptable sources. However, they should be used as inline citations to support specific statements in the text. Much of what you contributed was not encyclopedic in tone, and what would be supportable by sourcing was largely a duplicate of other articles on WP. Until there's an encyclopedic, sourced article on the topic, which does not just duplicate other articles in the category, I think the page is best the way it is, as a redirect to the selection of articles on the topic. The links I provided in the welcome message above contain guidelines on how to write and source articles. Also, you can't "reject GNU licence terms" on past contributions or disallow the inclusion of past edits on WP - everything submitted to WP becomes part of the permanent record. Again, please check out the links above for lots of info on this. Tapadh Leibh, -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please be aware that suggesting or inferring that I have duplicated other material from Wikipedia as you have done above is very close to being defamatory. I would ask you to clarify one point because my reading of your message is that you are using duplicate to infer copy, as in plagiarise, and if this is true then it is both demonstrably wrong and would be damaging to my professional reputation and as such would leave me no option but to take action against you and Wikipedia. Secondly you may well be right about the GNU licence, but as the content that was submitted was promptly deleted by you, I took the inference that it was no longer part of the text held by Wikipedia and so not subject to the GNU terms. My point was that as a result I would not sanction its reuse, i.e. resubmission from a third source to Wikipedia. If what you are suggesting is that even deleted content is still subject to GNU terms then that is a fair point and one I shall, when time allows, clarify.