User talk:Southernwitch

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful
Ian.thomson (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, using, 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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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 by academia and not taking any stance on doctrine.

October 2012
Hello, I'm Velella. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Witchcraft, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks,  Velella  Velella Talk 21:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted above, Wikipedia does not care about "truth," only what is verified by reliable sources -- Books by scholars and academics, not personal knowledge. You have not presented any sources, nor have you presented any sources demonstrating that the sourced information there was incorrect.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jschnur (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Wicca. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. — Sowlos (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing the encyclopaedia
Hello there, it must be discouraging for your first four edits to the encyclopaedia to be reverted but I wanted to explain why. WP is "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" but it's not the encyclopaedia where "everyone can write whatever they want". If you look at the links in Ian.Thomson's post above you'll see some helpful suggestions, but the key one is this: just because you know or believe something to be true doesn't make it OK to put in here. You may be wrong - for example you said that Wicca is the celtic word for witch. There is no such language as celtic, although Wicca is the Saxon word for a witch (as it explains elsewhere in the article.)

You're also putting some quite radical ideas into your re-writes, such as the notion that slavery played little part in the American Civil War. Changes in content like this need citing to reliable sources at least, and certainly also need discussing at the relevant article talk page.

If you're not sure about how to edit, please post here or on a relevant article talk page (do it just by editing the page like any other). Please don't just carry on adding unsuitable material as it will be edited back straight away. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  08:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)