User talk:Neromancer01

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for experimenting with our encyclopedia. The test edit you made worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Tips on starting your first article
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type  here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

December 2009
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Anwar al-Awlaki. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: I tried to give a bit more information from a different point of view. It was obvious that the information provided was extremely biased as Wikipedia guidelines say not to be. How can a biography of a living person be largely based on a months events? Why not provide an comprehensive picture. I am offend that my additions to the article were taken out. I did not change any existing items. The amount of information I positive information provided was minuscule to the negative information. Please let me know how I can edit my posting so it will adhere to the the guidelines and repost it. I would really appreciate it. Thanks.
 * Hi. I understand your frustration, as I understand that you want to get a message across.  Unfortunately, your edits were along the lines of a blog discussion sharing of views.  That's not what Wikipedia is about.  I would suggest you start by reading the above links in your welcome message.  That will give you a better idea as to how Wikipedia works.  One can't add their views.  What one can add is information sourced (with a footnote or reference) from a reliable source (that is a term of art in wikipedia) that is relevant and accurately stated.  Let me know if that helps, after you've tried it, or if you have any questions.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: Thank you for explaining. It is my first time so I may have let my emotions get in front of my technical intellect. When I get time i will review as you have suggested. BTW: As Wikipedia is gaining ground to becoming a "legitimate" source of reference. I do not approve of the method in which almost current entries of Islamic subject matter have been linked in some fashion to a centralized view. If one were to research these subjects a certain opinion which may not be exact are molded. If I were to do a comprehensive research how will I change any bias view? Can this ever happen once a Wikipedia entry has been made? Does Jimmy Wales expect that Wikipedia to be without biases. I know it is a double edged sword but specifically in the light of 11 Sept 2001 the world is getting a tunnel vision of Islam and Wikipedia is just one of the many tools which are being used. One can reference many sources but who determines the legitimacy of those? just because it is a widely used medium should not make it so. For example what if 100 Islamic scholars where to make Wikipedia entries on Islamic subjects and all were referenced accordingly. Another 100 non scholars made entries on some of the same Islamic entries with their own set of references. Both are legitimate with the average visitor. But how does Wikipedia determine which is worthy of publication in its archive? Is the aim of Wikipedia to re broadcast news entries or be a historical reference so a student or other researchers can benefit from? If you take my example of Al-Awlaki and you look at the example of Martin Luther King. Where are the positives and negatives for both? Wikipedia is being used as a conduit to negatively portray Islamic figures. Thanks again for your help.
 * My pleasure. Welcome, and I look forward to working with you.  IMHO, Wikipedia is never a legitimate source.  What it does do, when it works properly, is aggregate the information that appears in "reliable sources" in a coherent fashion.  See Reliable sources.  If I were a student writing a paper, for example, I would never cite to wikipedia.  But, where there are good wikipedia articles, I would look at their sources as a starting point perhaps for info on the topic.  I would also look at other sources -- whether on the internet or in paper publications.  But sources always -- whatever their form, can reflect biases of writers, and that is even the case with the paper sources, though some sources have better reputations than others as to fact-checking and the like.  Wikipedia determines what sources are acceptable through the concept of reliable sources (which I encourage you to read about) and the reliable sources noticeboard (where people opine as to whether particular sources meet a standard). It's necessarily perhaps an imperfect approach, but that is how it works. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)