User talk:Afaprof01/Archives/2011/August/3

Creation myth -burying the term
It's not going to work any better this time, okay? Whitewashing what sources cited actually call it, especially under deceptively worded edit summaries, doesn't fool anyone long. Wikipedia isn't the place to re-invent reality, agreed? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please... take an objective logical look at the two versions. The phrase "a description of the creation of the world contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible" -- then myth -- then back to one God and what the Hebrews were attempting, is illogical. The title now is "Genesis creation narrative." Worldwide it is known as what Hebrew and Christian religions believe. I dare say no one first thinks of "Oh, that book that has notable similarities to several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths." How is it best known? My proposal is to say what it is and then explain where the myths came from. To open with "contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible" and then say what it is as a creation myth is out of logical order. What is its major distinctive according to the text? Thanks...─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You may or may not have a valid point about when to introduce what kinds of claims. That's a talk page issue.  My point is that you are not allowed to accomplish this by sanitizing or whitewashing sourced claims to fit what you want the article to say. I'm being blunt about this because this isn't the first time you've backdoor-ed it like this and doing so disguises your claims and terms as sourced claims and terms. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Capital letters for pronouns referring to deities
Please see WP:MOSCAPS: " Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, are not capitalized." Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
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. A contribution you made to Mary Magdalene appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. ''Please stop adding a single point of view based on a non-academic source. Any discussion of 'demons' in relationship to Mary Magdalene must show the different modern views (and the older ones as well), attributed where appropriate. Your continued re-insertion of this without discussion (which I started on the talk page before you re-inserted this) is also approaching if not already edit-warring.'' Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Failure to communicate on article talk pages and with edit summaries
Communication is vital here, and you are not using talk pages or edit summaries (WP:Edit summary). Please start using both. And note that if more than one editor is reverting you, you must start communicating and getting WP:Consensus. Failure of editors to communicate or to get consensus often leads to their being blocked, something I presume you wish to avoid. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)