User talk:Einsteinizme

September 2010
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Beliefnet, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Additional, and blockable, issues you are doing are not remaining neutral in tone and misusing the minor edit checkbox. 132 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

04:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)04:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)04:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)04:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Einsteinizme (talk) All the analysis on this site is personal analysis. Are you telling me you only let research firms post here? Please. Everyone knows this site is as subjective as it comes, and that the things posted on here are often unreliable BECAUSE you allow posts with no research of any kind. It's common knowledge, obviously, since I have seen it widely discussed. A critical analysis is not by nature 'neutral' as you are implying here, either, (that would be why it's called criticalBold text' analysis', DOH!): as *I* certainly did enough scholarly and collegiate research in my life to know. Neither is pointing out a bias ABOUT something or some entity the same as having a bias yourself--as YOU would know if YOU knew anything about research. And that was all my post did.

Further, it is in your own rules that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution--and you had that to the site itself and its own excellent example of its repressive practices. Since anyone who wishes can verify the site's bias pretty quickly by a quick browse, one link seemed more than sufficient.

Your decision to delete seems clearly a political or monetary one, and your weak attempt at dressing it up as something else may fly with those who have never DONE any actual research, nor studied its procedural methods, but it doesn't fly with me. This is total hypocrisy, and we both know it (or are you really so ignorant of what critical analysis actually consists of that you clearly have no business doing what you're doing--which is it?). So kindly stop trying to spin pandering to certain groups and causes into some imagined violation of mine. Do you work for Beliefnet, perhaps? Or a company affiliated with one of its many satellites? I'm betting.

Eventually this repression of others' freedom of speech is going to backfire on you lot. I personally can't wait.


 * We really only care about what is verifiable, not what may or may not be true. The only source you've added for attribution was a deleted forum post, which isn't reliable from the start, let alone usable. Further assuming good faith is a requirement around here. Your claim about the deletion being political or monetary are not only baseless, but they assume bad faith. If you can't handle this, I suggest you go to an outside Wikia where issues like original research, neutrality, and civility don't matter. --132 04:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)