User talk:2600:100C:B253:17D3:14BD:F8B3:1CC3:ABDF

August 2022
Hello, I'm MaxnaCarta. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Patriot Prayer seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * MaxnaCarta,
 * It's a little bit frustrating that you did not read and decipher the meaning of the edit I made. It seems that you wish to say that you are impartial or neutral, but you have made an uneducated ommision due to the fact that the subject matter is "heated". You certainly need to be a more specific when making decisions on heated topics, and haven't any excuse for taking one side or the other to protect one side specifically because that side is more safe politically. This makes you biased without having considered the side that you are protecting, or even the side that you seem to believe need to be protected. It certainly is clear that you either didn't read my edit, or assumed a role considering that it may possibly be incorrect because of it's content but not because of what it's content is. For example is I said "white power is bad", and you stopped reading at "white power" and condemned my sentence, then you are providing the message that "white power is bad" is condemned, and therefore you are a ("anti white power is bad" double negative) organization making Wikipedia look very bad. What I edited was a very important addition to rectify a hate inflamed or passion inflaming attempt to incite politically sided viewpoints on the facts and history of a specific event. You are supposed to be part of a solution, but being lazy will make you part of the problem. Yes I do understand that you have a big job to do, and I respect you quick attentive solutions, but please try to be more careful when fact are provided. As and example..... If I read that the "car is red", and someone makes the edit that the "car is seemingly red", then it would be much more less warmongering to agree with the edit when deciding if a red car does or does not have any bearing on the drivers situation. There are thousand of irrelevant statements that could spawn from the incorrect information, and another life lesson to you would be to add the word maybe to the end of every sentence you make or edit from now on: instantly making your person MaxnaCarta the most 100 percent never wrong ever person in the world. To denote "maybe" or "possibly" or "seemingly" as a descriptor of noun or event shows a lack of trust for the user, and a dismissal regardless of intent. To disregard me regardless of knowing my intentions is one thing, but you have disregarded my actions regardless of effect. Isn't that exactly what you stated was your intention to keep neutrality. You have specifically skipped my intentions and also the effect of the wording of my edit. Please be a little less partial to violence enticing articles upon any further edits I may choose to make. Thank You Sincerely, Stacy Thomas. This message has not been edited for errors or otherwise, and will be well enough in it's recorded state. 2600:100C:B253:17D3:14BD:F8B3:1CC3:ABDF (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's simple. Your edit wasn't sourced but made it appear to be sourced. See also assume good faith Doug Weller  talk 14:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)