User talk:DrDrWeber

I'm so unfamiliar with editing Wikipedia that I don't know how to reply to you personally, unfortunately.

My comments had nothing to do with the subject of the article, Francis Shaeffer and were totally focused on the inappropriate tone of the paragraph (hagiographic). Indeed, the paragraph's tone was quite inconsistent with the rest of the article, which was appropriate (objective, neutral) in tone. This was one of the factors that led me to suspect that the paragraph was copied from previously published material.

Admittedly, it would have been better put on the talk page (whose location I still don't know), but my comments expressed no opinion whatsoever on Shaeffer. So your admonition, "Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum." was absolutely unwarranted.

Actually, I have a largely positive view of Shaeffer.

Your in scholarship, drdrweber

March 2014
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Francis Schaeffer. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)