User talk:ProfScienceEthics

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ProfScienceEthics, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —Paleo Neonate – 05:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design[edit]

Hello again ProfScienceEthics. I only just now noticed the new thread at WP:NPOVN which was already closed, since the {{ping}} was unsuccessful. However as others have pointed out Talk:Intelligent design is the proper place to discuss content issues in relation to that article. Please also see that page's previous discussions and archives for more information and sources that were proposed. Also, the mention of pseudoscience in the lead is part of a summary of the article's body (WP:LEAD for more information), so more information is also available in the article itself, with sources. Thanks and welcome back, —Paleo Neonate – 00:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! Thank you for clarifying. ProfScienceEthics

Newton[edit]

Newton wasn't a Catholic, in fact he opposed both Catholicism and Trinitarianism as lies from the pit of hell. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But/so he believed in hell?

—Paleo Neonate – 18:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that, it is just an expression. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have used ^[Humor] instead of the smiley. —Paleo Neonate – 21:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful[edit]

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We do not publish original thought nor original research.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) 14:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, People of Praise ‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Chastity ‎, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Meters (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And please read WP:MINOR. Meters (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at People of Praise, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop. Meters (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add your opinions or your analysis into articles. Meters (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again, please read WP:MINOR. These edits are in no way minor. Meters (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]