User talk:Sihan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear Sihan, welcome to the wikipedia. Editing others peoples commentaries is considered vandalism. Please do not do that. Thank you again, Muriel 19:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-

Comment by Sihan: sorry, i did believe insults MUST be deleted because of law. I cannot longer be responsible for what you do and decide here you know!

---

We have a very well-defined definition of vandalism on Wikipedia. Reverting back your edits which aren't even tempered with the principle of NPOV is not part of the definition of vandalism. Please make an attempt to actually communicate with the people reverting your edits to find out why they are continually being reverted. Thank you and welcome to Wikipedia. RadicalBender 19:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you want to add the Torah Cosmos reference to Torah please wait to see the result of the poll in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. And remember that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Muriel 20:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

[Wikipedia is not a] place for personal essays that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, not serve as a vehicle for personal opinions to become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it's preferable to let other people to whom those opinions are important write about them. See Wikipedia:No original research. But of course essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta-Wikipedia.

-- The Anome 20:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comment From Sihan:

1. This is NOT original research. It has been published before on the web.

2. This is NOT my personal opionion but serious research results

3. Recent attempts to trick me out and delete my content are religious motivated vandalism of people whose personal beliefe cannot be the borders for whole science.

4. wikipedia is not the place to censor because of religious belief. to to such is kind of inverse-racism against science. you know hat i mean.

5. If wikipedia rests on polls rather than on evidence, wikipedia is nothing serious and i am off in a minutes

Replies by Cyan:

1. Standards for an article in Wikipedia are rather higher than web-publication. Try a peer reviewed journal.
2. Fine.
3. You are presuming to know what is going on in someone else's mind.
4. This censorship is occurring because the article expresses an extreme-minority view, and appears to be original research. I doubt religion enters into it.
5. In Wikipedia practice, it is somewhat common to use polls to elicit community views, most notably on the Votes for Deletion page.

Someone wise once wrote, "Take it with humour. What I am trying to express is that lots of people are just too serious with what is said or written about them or their subject. I am an idiot, you see, so there is nothing to loose [sic]."

-- Cyan 00:26, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)