User talk:DavidCohen33399

Welcome!

Hello, DavidCohen33399, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

List of Centenarians (rabbis)
There is already a List of centenarians (religious figures). I don't see any reason why rabbis need split from that list into a separate list. Please explain, at either Talk:List of Centenarians (rabbis) or Talk:List of centenarians (religious figures), why the list should be split. If there is consensus, then I'll be glad to assist you with the split. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
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 Lists of centenarians 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. Thank you.

I raise the POV concern because your edit summary says, "only rabbis are officially considered religious so the list should only contain rabbis." There are many other religious people who are not rabbis: imams, preachers, gurus, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of centenarians (religious figures), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)