User talk:Carolduncanshusband

Welcome!

Hello, Carolduncanshusband, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of select site guidelines and policies you may find useful

"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
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. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Macbeth, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Hamlet have been reverted as well. You may want to read WP:FRINGE. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Ditto for Henry IV, Part 1, please stop Shakespeare authorship without discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article As You Like It, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While some scholars may think that Shakespeare was a pseudonym, we don't give that undue weight. The majority of reliable sources assume that Shakespeare was not a pseudonym, so that is what this encyclopedia will report. As the Oxfordian theory is the minority view, the articles will not be written from that perspective. Comparisons with geocentrism and heliocentrism won't go anywhere: if Wikipedia was around in Galileo's day, we would have told him to keep off this site until his work is more widely accepted. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is out: you would have told Galileo to keep quiet. Incidentally, it's not clear where Galileo could present his views if those in academia aim to suppress them, and they are the ones who manufacture a consensus and decide when something is viable. You editors should listening to the present day version of Galileo's Catholic Church and open your minds.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolduncanshusband (talk • contribs)

Well, today, Galileo would be expected to publish his evidence in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to acquire credibility (and the journal would want to provide evidence countering his views or point out gaps before dismissing it, otherwise a competing journal could take up Galileo and use him as an opportunity to snub the competition). Literary criticism, like science, also has peer-reviewed journals in which new views can be published. We're not a journal, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]