User talk:David Ian Walker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, David Ian Walker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Λua∫Wise (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Criticism of the Bible. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw you blanked the Islamic view on the Second Coming article. As seen above, if you delete sourced, longstanding content without explaining why on the talk page (or even in an edit summary) it can be seen as vandalism. Blanking the Islamic view was not appropriate because on wikipedia we have the WP:NPOV policy that says we shouldn't take sides, and that we should present all notable views (even minority ones). Since Islam is one of the worlds largest religions, and because Jesus is an important figure in that religion, and there are views on Jesus' return, I see why we shouldn't explain their views in the second coming article. In fact, NPOV says that we should include all notable views. If you have questions about any of this, I'd gladly help. Please avoid blanking sourced content in the future, and consider using the talk pages of articles to discuss problems you see with articles, and propose ways to improve them. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 17:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Armageddon, 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. Vassyana (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- As stated in the notices above, the lack of edit summaries and discussion is problematic. Additionally, on the article in question, the entire section is in bad shape. Selectively removing information is not helpful towards improving the article. It is notably suspicion-raising when it is part of an overall editing pattern. You could try finding reliable sources appropriate to the topic and reporting what they state about the issue. If you're unsure about how to appropriately reference the material, you could post on the talk page and ask for assistance. You could also tag the section as original research or as needing citations to allow other editors a change to seek references and rewrite the section accordingly. A full list of article tags can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Below is a welcome message with a bunch of useful links to review. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome
|
