Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Personal Jesus, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Personal Jesus was changed by Volound (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-08-02T03:14:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jacob (name), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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. Thank you. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
|Your contributions to Cenk Uygur have violated the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy for the following reason: repeatedly adding unsourced contentious material to the article and ignoring requests not to do so at User talk:184.108.40.206. It appears you have also violated policy previously by adding inappropriate content to articles on living people such as . Please read the policy carefully, and avoid making future edits which violate it.
Remember that Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. We have an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that biographical content is written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.Consider this a firm and final warning, made pursuant to the requirements of this ruling of the Arbitration Committee. Any further edits in violation of policy will result in your being blocked from editing. Blocks issued under this ruling may be of up to one year in length. Other possible sanctions may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behavior, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, or any other measures which may be deemed necessary. CT Cooper · talk 12:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
i am not making any additional claims. therefore i do not need any additional sources. i am identifying a misnomer and trying to correct it. the source that confirms his agnosticism is also the source that confirms his atheism. Volound (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes you are, your making the claim he is an atheist (unsourced) as well as an agnostic (sourced). Wikipedia uses terms as presented by reliable sources per WP:V / WP:BLP. The only source present on Cenk's religion says he is an agnostic (quote: "I am a fervent agnostic."), so that is what it says in the article. The article mentions atheism but it does not itself say he is an agnostic. Editors putting their own take on his religion in the article through general sources not about him is a clear violation of WP:NOR, and again is unacceptable per WP:BLP. CT Cooper · talk 12:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- someone is misusing terms here. that is a fact. whether it be you or cenk, its not me. the article says "was muslim BUT now agnostic", as if its impossible to be agnostic and a muslim, almost as if the author didnt know what agnostic means. cenk was and no longer is a muslim, sourced fact. cenk bashes organised religion (especially the abrahamics), sourced fact. cenk claims to be agnostic, sourced fact. unless cenk is some obscure kind of agnostic pantheist, he is an atheist.
- Your putting multiple sources together to reach a conclusion, which is original research, see WP:SYNTHESIS. If there is a video in which he states he is an atheist and it is clear and unambiguous, then it may be acceptable. If sources conflict then the context of the conflict would need to be made clear. For example, "he is an agnostic (source 1) atheist (source 2)" would again be synthesis and would not be correct. It would have to be presented along the lines of "he stated at X he was an agnostic (source 1), but said later at Y he was now an atheist (source 2)." CT Cooper · talk 15:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)