User talk:Atlantisau

Welcome

Hello, Atlantisau! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Sabrebd (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star

Apologies for missing the citation in your edit, as I was looking for it at the end. However, the source given, a personal recollection, is not considered reliable or verifiable on Wikipedia (see WP:Burden, which says that facts "must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"). Also if the version was only used in one school it will almost certainly fail WP:N. Sorry, but not all material is appropriate to an encyclopaedia. I hope you enjoy providing other edits for wikipedia. I have posted a welcome with some of the key policies above that you may want to follow and read.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice - I have read your explanation as to why you removed this content and have looked at both the WP:Burden and WP:N entries. The material can be corroborated by several people - will this satisfy WP:Burden? It has been used at at least two schools (Barker College and Sydney Grammar) and the notability of the Roget interpretation is sound. Details on the author are at www.johnsmorris.net. Finally, I appreciate the time you have taken to provide advice and hope these questions are not overly naive. --atlantisau (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2009

Your welcome and really we all have to get used to how this thing works, if you are going to edit you have to get used to being reverted and adjusted, that is the Wikipedia way. However, good news, I managed to find a source for the Roget's version (so have put it back in) and I think your astronomy version may on of the ones referred to a little further down the list. Sorry to say there is no reason to mention the teacher, as he is not the subject of the article.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Having reviewed further Wikipedia information, I see that there is no place for the mention of the teacher here, unfortunate though that may be. I do find the trend to eliminate information, such as the exact nature of the words, to be wrong. Millennia of oral tradition has resulted in much of the information that Wikipedia now reports as fact. In this instance, the exact words of Roget's version have been provided as recalled and verifiable by more than one person. The reference to its existence is cold comfort to someone seeking an encyclopedia's detail - rather they are sent on another search that will probably end up with them having to buy a book to find the words. Likewise, as you said earlier regarding the astronomy version "I think your astronomy version may on (sic) of the ones referred to a little further down the list." - the reader is not given the words but another need to search on for the information they hoped the encyclopedia would provide.Atlantisau (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]