User talk:Milla585

Welcome!
Hello, Milla585, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=622017963 your edit] to Semir Osmanagić may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Hello and thank You for nice welcome... Milla585
 * to the pyramids of Central America and China, covered with layers of soil and vegetation. 25

Hello, I'm Amortias. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Semir Osmanagić seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What I put (twice) and have been removed are FACTS, which are OBJECTIVE as they are... Subjective are opinions... I have no problems with tolerating different opinions, even including them in a text and I DID it too... What You have about Mr. Osmanagich is text based exclusevly on NEGATIVE opinions and few years old information and all FACTS have been removed... My question is: does it mean that Yours or wiki? objectivity about this person means that have to be given exclusevly negative information to the PUBLIC even if it is an opinion? Or is it not allowed to put ANY positive and TRUE fact about this person, not to talk about any positive opinion? For example, if he got US Congress reward WHY it cannot be there? Or any other fact or information about his activities, research, lectures etc... That means neutral to You or? Milla585
 * The edits you made were problematic for a couple of reasons. References from self published sources such as the website used in the first section are not usually considered reliable, if this could be backed by a second source this would add to the credibility of the statement.
 * A second issue is the inclusion of the link to the website that provides access to donations to a related organisation, this can appear promotional even if this was not your intention so should be avoided to prevent it being misinterpreted. If you want to try including the first two changes with these taken into consideration we can see if they hold and consider moving onto further changes. Amortias (T)(C) 19:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, especially about donations and would take care of the sources in the future, but NOT all of my references were from pages of Foundation and ALL that I put was removed... So, maybe it was TRUE reason or maybe it's just NOT possible to put ANY positive information about this person, so it's important to find ANY true or untrue reason just to KEEP all texts about him, for example, completely negative? Means NEUTRAL? Because it's SO obvious that for negative "information" or opinion it's just enough to have such reliable source like magazine or it's even good enough to put WRONG interpretation of some sentence picked up from some of his books... And it's not considered problematic at all... But SINCERELY is it REALLY more IMPORTANT "information" about ANY person then for example that he got reward from US Congress or any other FACT about his activities, lectures, researches etc.?