User talk:AxiomOfFaith/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
BCE vs BC |
AxiomOfFaith (talk | contribs) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 21:40, 26 September 2010
Welcome
|
September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Secular humanism appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Education in the United States. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for alerting me to this (I honestly need to read some things a bit more) but I fail to see exactly what you are talking about in both cases. I always say, if a website is out of line with reality, then change the website, don't deny reality. I will revert those edits until this is resolved.--AxiomOfFaith (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind, you already did.--AxiomOfFaith (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I liked your work at Second rout the Army Group Jiangnan- you definitely improved that article. The only problem edits I saw were all related to religion- just remind yourself, when editing in those subjects, of the differences between your own beliefs, those of the people you are writing about, and the verifiable facts, and I think you'll be fine. I like the way the existing article on Secular Humanism deals with the 'religion' angle- the lede phrasing makes it clear that most humanists think of themselves as a 'philosophy,' not a 'religion,' but the body of the article explores both how their critics have spoken of them and how the courts have ruled, which I think creates a fair balance. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I understand. Thank you for the clarification!--AxiomOfFaith (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I liked your work at Second rout the Army Group Jiangnan- you definitely improved that article. The only problem edits I saw were all related to religion- just remind yourself, when editing in those subjects, of the differences between your own beliefs, those of the people you are writing about, and the verifiable facts, and I think you'll be fine. I like the way the existing article on Secular Humanism deals with the 'religion' angle- the lede phrasing makes it clear that most humanists think of themselves as a 'philosophy,' not a 'religion,' but the body of the article explores both how their critics have spoken of them and how the courts have ruled, which I think creates a fair balance. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Edit Warring on Secular Humanism
Please don't edit war. Per WP:BRD, when you make a change which is reverted by another editor, the next step is to discuss your change on the talk page. Re-reverting is combative, rather than collaborative, and can result in administrator intervention. Just hop in to the discussion page and express your concerns, and other editors are likely to contribute. Jesstalk|edits 01:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
BCE vs BC
Per the manual of style I have reverted these 2 edits [1] and [2]. Please read this portion of the MoS, where among other things it says "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." Heiro 21:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)