User talk:Anyuse200

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Anyuse200, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  gren グレン 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Anklet sound / Hijab and Islam

Hi, please discuss on the talk page your additions to hijab and other pages. Firstly, they are a pietistic and narrow view... different Muslims have different beliefs on these things. For instnace Pakistani practice does differ from Arab practice traditionally. Please discuss your changes first on the article's talk page. Talk:Hijab. gren グレン 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Hijab. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Tachyon01 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, if you think your addition is worthwhile or the article needs cleanup, add the {{cleanup}} rather than deleting a whole portion of an article. That way, we can distinguish between what is vandalism and what isn't. Furthermore, discuss your contributions on the article's talk page and provide your sourcing when adding your contribution. Tachyon01 21:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sound of jewellery as an aphrodisiac

The biggest problem I see is that the article strings together a number of points to the extent that it is original research. I don't see a source that says that the sound of jewellery is an aphrodisiac. Even so, it seems a bit narrow of an article topic and not quite encyclopedic. All these points are noted in the AfD discussion, as well. —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

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. It appears you have not followed this policy at Mississippi. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. Smokizzy (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If there's something on Wikipedia which you believe needs to be corrected, please go ahead and make the necessary edits—there's no need to ask for another editor's involvement (although discussing controversial edits on an article's Talk page is customary). For further assistance, please see Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia. -KurtRaschke (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007 (redux)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hoodectomy, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foul language?

Butting in, I know, but your comment to change [1]

"..., foul language not be tolerated"

drew my attention. I couldn't see anything wrong immediately, even after checking your talk page, Pehkay's talk page, and the article's talk page. We need to be respectful of each other, even when in conflict.

I don't understand or have any background here, and can only suspect the usual conflicts have arisen when one simple name is applied to multiple different things/ideas. Shenme (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-instated some items you claim to not have sources

The church government section has very informative insight into the organisational structure of this group. Citations are adequate enough-including book title references of the groups teachings on ecclesiastical polity, but if you have specific sentences you feel must be referenced, please point them out. Blanket deletions under the excuse of "insufficient references" do not fly on this issue. If you apply this logic, then all of Wikipedia should be deleted (all pages, all subjects).

Even the section on the Recovery Version of the Bible isn't harmful, yet you seem to presume that it must be removed from the page. Please explain what exactly needs to be referenced.

Again, any particular sentences you feel must provide a reference need to be identified on a sentence by sentence basis. This group has the habitual pattern of casting slime on the characters of anyone who points out something they want to pretend isn't applicable to them in order to deflect attention away from real issues where they may be off. They only like people to think they are "on" and even teach that you must be blind to things you see aren't right. They want everyone to see them the way they want to be seen and enforce this mentality inside the group. If you don't see them this way, then they threaten litigation against you. This is why I wrote what I said about information control. I have no problem with editing pages, but there must be a respect for what is accurate and clear information - and not accusing that it is "original research" that doesn't provide references.

Even the sections you deleted, I am willing to work on a sentence by sentence basis to clean up the article. Not every sentence or even every paragraph requires a reference. Please help improve this article on a scholarly basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Step2new (talk • contribs) 07:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up

I am really at a loss as to what in the church government section you feel requires citations and what sort of citations you are looking for? There are links to other wiki pages on polity which relate to this section for definition. Every "church" has polity. There isn't much difference if you read the page on Ecclesiastical Polity with this one, other than the EP page is global and this section on Local Church polity is specific to the group. Actually, from this section, you will get alot of help of what this aspect of the Local Church has. I find the section informative on an objective and historical basis. As this is a relatively new "church" on the christianity scene, it also is important to know.

There are also book titles referenced in the section which do not have wikipedia pages. If these are some of the major sources of Local Church EP, then why do you claim there are no citations? If this is what the group teaches, then they are "genuine sources" and not original research. As I mentioned before, can you give me specific phrases which you feel require a citation? I wish you wouldn't ignore this request. Please don't be so general on the citation issue, please be more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Step2new (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OK

Well (scratching my head), if this is all that you had in mind to improve this section of the topic, I really wish you would have answered my request to point out where you felt this change was necessary. I couldn't agree with you more on the change. It is much more appropriate and helpful – but such a simple and efficient change certainly doesn’t justify removing the entire section. It made a mountain out of a mole hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Step2new (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Abuse

Evading discussion and talk pages with constant blanket deletes of large amounts of material you deem for yourself as "uncited", "unreferenced" and inappropriate have been reported to Wikipedia for editorial vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Step2new (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you think you're doing, but we don't delete sections when citations are needed. We use fact tags. Stop doing it. Richard001 (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
My respected brother, your work is good as long as you have a valid reason for what you are editing on the wikipedia. Before deleting a whole section based on "duplicate" item, please wait for a day or two to see if the editor is improving or editing the section or not. I was about to add the whole section on that. Please be patience!

2. Also, please check the reference page before you change a content quoted based on the references. (for ex. "devout to the movement" vs. the devout to Christ or the Lord", etc)

3. The order of meeting don't have any citation and it can't have "simply" because these things are of not doctrinal or published item but a matter of observance. If I can't cite for this why don't you cite it instead of deleting it or turning the article into a "stub". Please consider these humble request in good conscience and do think on it (a meeting order can't have a citation). Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking my words back and I sincerely apologize for I feel that my tone in these sentences were not up-to the mark and were not glorifying God. I am sincerely sorry. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] writing articles on religious groups

Hi Anyuse200:

I studied the WK guildlines and pages of discussion and as much edit wars as I was able to find. I also researched your contribution, deletion, and the ways of your editing on WK. Here is a summary of what I thought would be good to communicate with:

For any given topic, pro- writers will want to cast the group in as favorable light as possible. Con- writers will want to show the negative aspects of membership in the group, and the negative effects of the group and society in the world. Following wiki guidelines helps to prevent topics from becoming pro- and con- battlegrounds. I'd like to summarize those guidelines I've found to be especially pertinent and useful.

First, any useful, noncontroversial statements such as 'the sky is blue' to which pro- and con- observers agree, and which are not obvious to the general reader, should be allowed without citations. This is because for many groups, no good secondary sources exist and basic information is always of use to the interested. “An example might be to describe the way in which baptism is carried out.” Or “The present order of worship.” This has nothing to do with controversy or showing the group in an favourable light. The meeting is a fact (eg: the sky is blue) and the order is a fact but then you don't have press articles or newspapers, or volumes of book written on this silly matters.”

However other thing related to doctrines and controversial aspect should be cited. That means adding an in-line reference for each line being written, so that the fact is numbered, and a footnote made in the reference section. IMO, if it's not cited and it's in any way controversial you should not add the point at all. The argument is often made, that exceptions should be made for beginners. I think that beginners should work like this from day one, and thus spared embarrassment and editor slams. (Which is how I learned.) Also we should not delete the whole section in a instant. We all should work together to present the facts and if we know that something is true (pro or con), we should not turn it into controversy or edit wars.

When you cite, use only 'secondary sources' such as encyclopedias, articles in scholary journals, and published books (which have been peer reviewed), or other responsible publishing houses. This is very important because only these sources know how to cross check information, avoid libelous issues, and generally provide a WP:NPOV. Do not use any of the following, which wikipedia disallows: Self-published sources, especially web sites either pro- or con-. See also WP:SPS. Newspaper articles, photos, diaries, journals, and so on. These are primary sources, and writing which uses such sources is original research which violates WP:NOR.

There is a situation where I believe newspaper articles can be used. This is the case of a survey newspaper or magazine article which is wide in scope and has performed background research. Newspaper articles however on specific events should not be used, especially historical events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HopeChrist (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morningside Heights

Hi Anyuse200. Regarding your moving the Eastern boundary of the district: According to all reliable sources, Morningside Heights is defined by its topography and ends where the heights end, the top of Morningside Park (along Morningside Drive). If you feel that your definition is correct, please do provide a reliable source. Thanks!--RegentsPark (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, do note that the Landmarks commission article that you persistently add to the article refers to townhouses and the old nursing towers, none of which are in Morningside Heights by either definition. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)