User talk:Cinnamon colbert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

14 jan 2007 APOLOGIZE for messing up format Iraq war

[edit] speedy

First of all removing speedy deletion tags is considered vandalism and therefore a blockable offense. If you disagree with a speedy deletion tag then simply type {{hangon}} below the speedy tag. Second of all the page you created is infact pure nonsense. It does not even come close to wikipedia's standards. I speedy'd it because of that reason. Please see: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Second of all if you are going to create a page then do not state your future ambitions for it on the main page, place them on the talk page. It is quite obvious that you do not know what you are doing. Before creating anymore articles or even editing I would more than strongly suggest you look at the following pages: Wikipedia: Tutorial and Wikipedia: Manual of Style. Until your "future" article is up to par I believe that it shouldn't be on wikipedia. First read the forementioned pages then go through the creation process slowly so as to find any mistakes before you save anything. --Tainter 02:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your note

Sorry, bud, I am an atheist. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia -- it's not the right place to preach about what religions people should or shouldn't follow. Our task is to relay verifiable facts we can attribute to reliable sources, in as neutral a manner as possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree in the strongest possible terms -- statements like "atheism is the bestt!!!!" and "Buddha for the win!!1" are all over the religion pages, on Wikipedia. They're not helpful, they make the encyclopedia look bad, and they damage the project's credibility. We are not here to decide which religion is best. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, but one way or another, you're arguing the merits of a religion, and that's not at all the purpose of an encyclopedic article. Our duty is to describe the subject, and nothing more. You may wish to see what Wikipedia is not for more information. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to give precedence to anything. Again, we're here to present verifiable facts which we can attribute to reliable sources, in a neutral manner. We are an encyclopedia, not an authority on which religions are or aren't correct. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statins

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did at statin. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Additions should be attributable to a reliable source. MastCell 23:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)