User talk:Neighborlee

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Neighborlee. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Your addition to Paul the Apostle has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please note that you also can't just 'tweak' text, it has to be substantially different from the original. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page at the top there are some tabs, one should either have a + sign or say something about a new section, click on that and add something as a subject, then your text, signing with 4 tildes. Our policy (not a guideline, this has more teeth) on copyvio is at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. As you can see, we assume anything is copyright unless it is explicit that it is not. So lack of a copyright notice does not mean you can copy it. Also note that policy states " Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism).".

I'm not suggesting you did this deliberately, just saying that you did do it and it is something we take very seriously - unfortunately it is all to common and editors have to spend a lot of time removing copyright violations, we always have a considerable backlog. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborlee (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)== December 2012 == Please do not add or change content, as you did to Paul the Apostle, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. This is something new editors often don't understand - you really need to make sure your edits are based on what we call reliable sources, not your own analysis. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your email. I repeat, you need to use sources which meet our criteria and which specifically discuss the subject of the article, in this case Paul. We can use logic for simple arithmetic but not for a lot more. I hope if you post elsewhere you explain that your post was against our policy of requiring reliable sources. We aren't an appropriate venue for new ideas or the analysis of editors such as you and me. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as I think discussions such as this should be public, please don't email me again, just post here. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to make that email public, but I have no way of getting that information exactly as presented to you since I don't seem ? to have a copy of it, or know where to find such a copy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neighborlee (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is by definition and purpose a place to accumulate verifiable information from published reliable sources. It is not, nor is it intended to be, a place for speculation, original research or synthesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul the Apostle

Insert as promised on my own TALK page, that was in error sent to DougWeller via Email.

So you are telling me that Wikipedia does not welcome discussion, on facts, as 'they see them' ? That's not diplomacy or intellectual stimulation, but imho, dogma and disinterest in new facts as they may become available over time. No one lives in a vacuum doug, I should hope you realize that, and if Wikipedia thinks it can its not a place Im sure I can find comfort in? We are suppose to be open to new information, new material, as your own 'reliable source' page speciifcaly says, right ? Im suppose to be able to challenge something, or so I thought I read, by at least offering appropriate References and I know how to use them. ( yes, I think my sources were reliable, and pertinent to the wiki article) So if Im allowed to make changes , based on a 'challenge' as that pages calls it, and I name my sources by using said markup, then why is my post deleted ?

I still have yet to see you answer me directly about what change I need to make ! YOu have the direct responsibility to answer that question, or be deemed completely irrelevant to the conversation, and trust me, I as a independent journalist , writer and compassionate thinker, will do just that in spite of your willingness to thrwart me with no specifics as to what you claim I did incorrectly.

I think Wikipedia's attempt to play god is incredulous. That isn't an attack, but a personal opinion, based on what has been done to MY EDITS, without my permission and obviously with zero malice on MY part to bring a educated point to the supposed 'facts' about Paul The supposed Apostle of Jesus. Does an apostle really take the position directly in opposition to a noted figure of history and then try to maintain its effectiveness or credibility,,,I wonder. There are websites, believe it or not, that do not take down peoples 'opinions about facts' just because they disagree ( unless filthy or harmful, etc.), but instead send someone a notification TO change it, or they will ( and give that person time to do so out of respect). I am beginning to think that doesn't work at Wikipedia because some people can't handle 'facts' that don't fit into their revised opinions.

That's why I was posting what I did, not because I felt that what I was saying was absolute , but that the supposed 'facts' on Wikipedia aren't absolute either ( and you should not delude yourself into thinking they are ), so that my new information was at least as factual as what's on Wikipedia, and that given that article was about Paul, as was my entire 'edit' ( as I recall), I fail to see how what I did was unfaCtual or didn't contain reliable sources, and I must certainly find it highly irregular and questionable that you remove my edit without complete disclosure as to why. I understand you have to maintain some modicum of fairness and stick to 'known facts', obviously, but its getting into a very grey area, when one ( or afew) people get to decide who and what those facts are, and where they can come from and we've been done that road and we know how it ended. I've seen similar posts by other people, and other 'doctors' shall we say, and I find it all a bit discomforting ( as did he).

If you continue to fail to disclose why, I will continue on my own obviously ,and on my own website and wherever else my typing fingers will travel. Facts matter obviously, and you do not have the luxury to make up your own. Imagine if the writers of the dead sea scroll, which you may find no favor in, decided to give up and not place them in protective hidden places away from hands that would repudiate them and 'remove them' from public record, just because they could, and just because they weren't reliable sources or somehow pertinent enough to a given topic. Just imagine-

cheers nl —

I want to state for the record, that I'm still not aware, where I violated anything, because I was never sent verification of that. Im not about to guess or make things up on my end to satisfy that. I want to reiterate that I did include several citing references in my lastest attempted comment on Paul The Apostle. Neighborlee (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page, as did another editor. I'm not saying you are making things up. But (and I had the same problem when I was new) you haven't grasped the difference between writing an essay, journal article or book where you can use sources that don't discuss the subject directly to make an article, and Wikipedia where sources need to discuss the subject directly - or in other words, our articles are based upon what sources meeting our criteria say about a subject (other policies and guidelines are important but not relevant here). It's a whole different ball game and can feel quite restrictive at first. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]