User talk:LBHocraffer

Welcome!

Hello, LBHocraffer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ezekiel and Astronomy, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ezekiel and Astronomy

The article Ezekiel and Astronomy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

essay / original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I'm not the one who proposed deletion (though I agree with it), but since you're a new editor I thought it best to get clarification from an actual person, as the 'bots are rather informal. The reason your article is suggested for deletion is that it represents "original research"; I strongly suggest you read WP:OR to understand Wikipedia's stance on the matter. Long/short, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, covers material that has already been covered by secondary sources. We do not conduct primary research here, come to new conclusions, or further debate. Ideally all statements are sourced to existing materials; the goal is to present and organise knowledge, not to create new knowledge.

This is in no way a judgement as to the quality of your writing or research, but simply a recognition that one does not do new research for an encyclopedia. If you are interested in working up an actual encyclopedic article on the subject, you could look for writings by previous astronomers and theologians, and quote their findings. Similarly, if your current article were to be published in, say Astronomy Monthly or what-have-you, another editor could quote your findings in such a WP article.

Hope this clarifies any confusion. Your article is certainly interesting, but as Original Research it's just not what Wikipedia does. If you're interested in convering the topic from an encyclopedic angle, or have a different topic in mind you'd like to feel out, feel free to write me. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading and studying, but still unsure what problems we are having beyond learning the formatting proceedures. We certainly did not consider this to be original research or new findings - it is all very old information. One of your editors even suggests copyright violation, which has me completely puzzled. Could someone tell me what they refer to? The formatting has lost some paragraphing and indention of quotations, but they are certainly footnoted even in their present appearance. I'm a scientist, not a preacher. Restoring meaning does not mean new conclusions, and we did not consider this religious.

Rather than delete, while I learn better what is required, might the article be moved back to my sandbox while I work on it? Or should I do this myself? LBHocraffer (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]