User talk:Kieronoldham/Archive 10

Happy Hogmanay!

 * Thanks, . There's nothing like spending Hogmanay in Scotland: I saw New Year 2007 in in the town of Lochgelly with a friend who moved up there when we were teenagers. Nothing like the resentful stares I sometimes received from locals hearing my accent in public places or being refused service in pubs at age 26 because of my "wee baby face" (one guy placed his hand on my shoulder, smiled, and said "you're English that's what's wrong!") being replaced by friendly gestures and insistence I shared a drink with them. May make plans to go back up there this year. Anyhow, thanks and all the best for 2017.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Scott Article
I was brought to the Rachel Scott by the trailer for the movie "I'm Not Ashamed", and found it to be rife with language that indicates a clear religious bias of the author. I see the religious neutrality of this page as easily disputable, considering the intentional capitalization of out-of-grammatical-place words like "Lord", "Him", "His", "Son", and "God". I previously attempted to edit this page to correct these errors, changing these words to make grammatical sense (with the exception of those in direct quotes of the deceased), as this is merely an informational article, not a religious text. It has been edited back. While I see the one edit of the last user was to change "Christ" as an entity to "Christianity" as a faith, your edits returned the article to its biased voice. When looking at the reasoning for the initial edit of my own revisions, you defended it as "Most likely cynical vandalism". This appears disingenuous to me, particularly when it comes to preserving the neutral integrity of an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risky shift287 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You caught me online, . As it says on the talk page I just attempted to morph the sources and their wording context into a dilute mix of their collective context. I didn't write the original sources, and the article receives a generous amount of daily views. I apologize for the choice of words, dude. With all due respect if you'd have not edited as an IP I may have thought otherwise as to the intention of your edits, although I will reiterate I used contextual language of the original sources.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate the respectful defense. I see your point of view. I actually just now created an account. Never even given this much thought before now.Risky shift287 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's okay mate. Welcome aboard Wiki. I used to make edits as an IP before I created this account in 2008 and many were reverted to my frustration. (I'm something like the 9,500th most exhaustive contributor to date.) A good tip I can give (which you may already know) is to find a verifiable, reputable source to accompany new adjustments. Even if it is reverted it will likely get taken to the talk page for consensus one way or the other. Several people believe in mandatory registration although I'm indifferent.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)