NARkwS
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.--John (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. --John (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Original research edit
Many new editors to wikipedia are frustrated by the rules against original research. It IS very frustrating to have complete strangers who know nothing about a topic say that you can't add information that you know to be correct from your own eyes, own knowledge.
Yet that is the policy which wikipedia has developed over the years, and I think you can see why: Otherwise anybody could write anything and say "I know this to be true" forcing an endless hunt for somebody else with personal evidence to support or refute it. It would be endless.
As a result, material (unless it's incredibly obvious and well-known) should only be included if there a reliable source. That's why your quite accurate statements keep getting reverted. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I've since uploaded a file showing the horizon and coastline. Is this enough?
Please be aware that I'm debating this on 3 fronts now. My update was being undone by John without any obvious method of disussing it with him, so I've added an item to his talk page (although there's no response yet). Also, user Martinevans123 chose to link the illusion to an Ames Room - when it's incredibly obvious that they're different (so contradicts that prerequisite). Since photos from the Electric Brae haven't ever been obvious there now seems little point in me attempting to get it published as being "well-known", thus it'll remain a mystery to the majority. I did this harmless study for free and decided that Wikipedia was a good platform to inform those interested. While still true, I'm no author and can't give much more time to this topic.
NARkwS (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I realise what you've written about threading however this isn't the easiest method of contacting people. I'm hopeful that you'll see this. My intention was not to be disruptive, only informative.
Can you please advise on how 'original' research becomes usable? I've read the Wiki page on it, but it doesn't help. It's advice on declaring such blatant information is that it's fine so long as no-one disagrees - but the "undo" responses I've received only consider my description to be unworthy so without proper debate or anyone having gone there to see for themselves.
Most of the photos I can provide serve no purpose in explaining the illusion, and simply add to the evidence that it is one. A single exception is the one I've now included here. The actions someone can now take at the Elecric Brae causes them to see the land with the proper perception - but since no-one has ever published this it's being excluded from Wikipedia. This illusion was a mystery for >70 years and I'm keen for it's cause to now be known.
Thank you in advance NARkwS (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this is precisely the sort of thing our WP:NOR rule is designed to prevent. As has been explained to you above, Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research regarding the phenomenon. If you could persuade a reputable website or magazine to publish your explanation, we could maybe use it. Until then. --John (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- The section "Cause" has now been excluded by Martinevans123 and cites incorrect comparison to a manufactured illusion absent of a natural coastline, known as an Ames Room. I've started a talk on his page. NARkwS (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi NARkwS. Thanks for your note. You are obviously very enthusiastic about this particular topic. I have opened a thread here, so that all discussion may be kept in one place. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)