User talk:Snakeappletree

Comments on your edits
Hey there. Glad you got your username sorted out.

I wanted to mention a couple of things about your edits thus far, specifically to Cthulhu. You entered several paragraphs into the lead of that article, but they appeared to be based on original research, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. All of our articles need to be verifiable and based on reliable sources, and so far your material hasn't had any references, and has looked like your research - I notice on Nyarlathotep you included mention of yourself in the section, as an example. If you've got some secondary sources backing those pieces of information up, then go ahead and add it back, but I'd suggest discussing it on the talk page of the articles first. Take a look at the links in the welcome message above to learn more about editing here. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ok Tony, sorry I feel now that I sent you a massive rant. I just red the editing lesson and it answered quite a few questions I had asked you. Wiki seeems not to encourage new research & development then? what do I have to do to get around this, I could cite 'the word Nyarla is ancient egyptian for catfish' because it is, but I would have to scroll through loads of the net and books to find an exact reference in an already published source to verify it. the fact is that the word means what it means, is that not enough evidence? the vein I am working in with the cthulhu & nyarlahotep thing is not one that has been written about before, it is my own research and it is verifiable. would it be ok as an alternative to publish a new page called 'snakeappletree on cthulhu, my own research' but that is glory seeking.

I have better things to do than mess aroudn with this, will speak with again. thanks for your help and advice, Im taking it on board, its useful having you around. Cheers. Sukran --Snakeappletree (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the issue you're coming up against is that Wikipedia is not intended as a primary source - it's a tertiary source, an encyclopedia, rather than a publisher of original thought and theory. The articles here are intended to be summary information based on the deeper research done elsewhere - this is why, in our best articles, you see the lengthy lists of references at the end of each article. We're here to provide people an opportunity to learn about things, then give them the opportunity to continue their own research through the references. The original research guidelines set out that point quite firmly - if it's not been discussed in a reliable source someplace, it's not something that we can include as an encyclopedic article. I'm sorry if that's not what you were hoping for here. It seems like you have quite a lot of knowledge on some interesting topics; I'd suggest that you could help in those areas through knowledge of references that might not be known by the editors working on those topics now. There's a lot to be done here as we develop the encyclopedia, and knowledgeable help is always welcome. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)