User talk:Ester Lidia

Welcome!
Hello, Ester Lidia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Ellen G. White does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I appreciate your welcome. I am confused about your criticism. I am a scientist. I have a Master in Geology and worked for 15 years as an Environmental Consultant in Los Ángeles, CA. I worked from 1984 until 1997 in libraries trained to input data in cataloguing books for the Library of Congress. I perceive myself to have a Neutral Point of View. I am not a participant of the the church I edited. I am familiar with the workings. I consider myself more of an anthropologist and a student of politics and religion. However my studies not only include secular and local scholastic sources but also personal experience. I am not here to promote anything or anyone. I was reading about this prophetic woman because I had read some of her books as a child and there were missing pieces to the page I perceived as relevant to the subject. I looked at the information and doubled checked what I included. So I am sorry you consider what I did as outside the guidelines. I have been using Wikipedia since it’s inception but only recently felt the desire to add things that I have encountered in my studies which may expand the shared knowledge. I like objective physical expressions as well, I have a blog and a YT channel to express my own experiences.. My intent here is participate to add from the studies I have done in a few subjects when I see the information missing.. I will keep on mind the editing of others. Although, I don’t understand how that functions since in my editing of someone else’s work I updated the information from 2015 to 2019 after I looked for that data. Do I need to add it as a new sentence and leave the previous outdated information in place? I am still remembering this rigid way of computer writing that I have not used since the 80s and 90s. Thanks for sending the guidelines for Wikipedia. I will study them and make sure I do not trigger anyone else’s perception doubting my intent of being factual and impartial. Ester Lidia (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, the gist is: stating that she had real prophecies is a violation of WP:NPOV, since prophecies cannot be shown to be historical facts, since the historical method prohibits that. The Enlightenment has done away with all supernatural claims from history. On the other hand, charges of plagiarism (like in "compare left column with right column") are in perfect alignment with the epistemology of history. So, her plagiarism is an objective fact. It would be insane do deny that she used stuff from the books written by others, since that has been shown to be the case, objectively. Even Adventist publishing houses have started adding footnotes to the plagiarized works. As stated, Natorious clearly doesn't understand modern biblical theory where true scholars don't believe in precognition. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Definition of alleged (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online) 1
 * accused but not proven or convicted

an alleged burglar 2
 * asserted to be true or to exist

an alleged miracle an alleged conspiracy 3
 * questionably true or of a specified kind : SUPPOSED, SO-CALLED

bought an alleged antique vase

My change of that word was because I only knew the first definition for that word. It is quite a confusing word. It is both an assertion and also a supposition.

She asserted to be true as did those that witnessed the phenomena, that she was having prophetic visions. As have the writers of most religions such as Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, even Buddhism and many scientists and scholars. Individuals assert that they have had personal connection (prophetic) to divine, higher levels of consciousness or awareness.

The critics are accusing that she outright lied about her sources (accusation since they were not there as witnesses and their studies could be from their own bias...for this we would need an actual trained judge to find guilt). I have not personally read the criticism. So I would not know either way.

A scientist asserts that the data is accurate with a given probability of outliers that do not conform to the norm, and those outliers have been excluded from the information used to draw conclusions.

Personally, I am more fascinated by the outliers rather than the norm...that is the reason I do research. So I would not be a good provider of information for Wikipedia. I had always perceived this medium to be open to the norm as well as the outliers as a sharing of all knowledge. I now know the guidelines and the limitations.

I appreciate this exchange and the learning I have experienced in this process in perspectives. I trust everyone’s sharing and take it all at face value. I am not on this planet to be a critic or censor anything or anyone’s experience, nor to limit my sharing of knowledge by the objective consensus. Thank you for the information you have provided and also for the amazing work you do in this compilation of data. I will not be participating in this action except as a curious reader. Sincerely, Ester Lidia (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 29 July 2019 08:01:39 (UTC)