User talk:Philburton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Philburton, 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
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Mcginnly | Natter 14:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No original research
I'm afraid that even if you are a ringer in the tower, you must provide reliable citable evidence of your claims - this is one of the cornerstones of wikipedia - please read Wikipedia:No original research and reconsider your edits to this section. I'll gladly offer any advice you need, but the information needs to be both notable and reliable - saying joe blogs doesn't like something in the built environment is unlikely to be considered notable. If it's not notable enough for the chronicle - it's even less likely to be notable enough for wikipedia. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reply
But you're talking to someone with vast experience in this field. I changed the article to adhere to POV rules, but just because there is no citable information of any kind doesn't make it any less important. The tower is a landmark, it is an eyesore, it has been vandalised, it is of modern design, chester is an historic city - such statements are of course based on opinions, but are widely accepted as fact, and surely don't need backing up with citations. The section of the article on the bells and tower provides reliable, relevant and concise information about the cathedral bells and tower, the acoustics etc. Stating that something needs to make a local newspaper to be notable is a bit OTT. Indeed, it probably has [what hasnt?], but I reiterate the information is correct, reliable and relevant - the world of bells, towers etc is a very secretive one. I am only able to speak about the central tower in such detail because I have been up there, one of only a handful of people alive who have. The modern tower, again, only a handful of people have access and have the knowledge I have, which makes the sharing of that information all the more important - isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?
- I'm afraid it's one of the paradoxes of wikipedia that even if you are a living albert einstein - you'd still have to cite the General theory of relativity in the article - it's not enough to be expert, you need to cite published sources - please read the policy. With minimal research I found a website - now added to the references section - that explains, in some detail, the history of the tower and the original bells (despite the secretive habits of campanologists), whilst not fitting the best example of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it's not bad and the information therein can be added to the article. Also you might want to reconsider such sweeping statements of 'fact' about 'eyesores' - one mans eyesore is anothers great building and the addition of such opinions to wikipedia articles definitely needs sourcing, it is not OTT, it is wikipedias policy.
- I'd love to see the article on Chester Cathedral reach Featured article quality. It's my local cathedral and a source of endless fascination to me - I think I'll add a paragraph about the choir carving this weekend - but what I write will need to be sourced - perhaps we could collaborate, but you'll need to tone down such opinionated material to make it work. Cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- here's an extract from Wikipedia:Five pillars:-
- "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcginnly (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
- here's an extract from Wikipedia:Five pillars:-
- I'd love to see the article on Chester Cathedral reach Featured article quality. It's my local cathedral and a source of endless fascination to me - I think I'll add a paragraph about the choir carving this weekend - but what I write will need to be sourced - perhaps we could collaborate, but you'll need to tone down such opinionated material to make it work. Cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] question
What do the green or red + or - numbers mean on the watchlist? Philburton 14:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
