User talk:Luke6802

February 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Nebuchadnezzar II, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify

Please clarify to me how I broke the editing rules for the Nebuchadnezzar II page. I explained my reasons for the edit, and you did not refute them, but instead just labeled my editing as "disruptive." Please explain. Thanks. Luke6802 (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Luke6802[reply]

See WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re: removal of a line of description of the book of Daniel in the article "Nebuchadnezzar II"

My original edit was to remove a contested description of the book of Daniel from an article about Nebuchadnezzar II. I did not add a different description. I merely removed the description because the citation was from one scholar and did not represent the whole of scholarship about the book of Daniel. I think that discussion is best left for the article on the book of Daniel. Why give a description of the book of Daniel that does not represent all scholarly thinking about it in an article that is not even about the book of Daniel? Brevity is supposed to be valued in Wikipedia. My edit removing the contested description of Daniel made the article on Nebuchadnezzar II less controversial and more focused on the topic at hand. The description of Daniel that I removed only represented one view of several on the book of Daniel and treated that one view as if it were the truth about the book of Daniel, and all of this in an article that was not even about the book of Daniel. This is misleading, unhelpful, and unprofitable in an article that is supposed to be about Nebuchadnezzar II. Luke6802 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Luke6802[reply]

That's just your opinion. You have to play by our WP:RULES, else get blocked or banned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]