User talk:Ocyril

Welcome!

Hello, Ocyril, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

George of Laodicea
I removed your proposed deletion tag, because this was a notable person. Inaccuracies in the article should be fixed though the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The verbatim copy from Wikisource did not resemble a Wikipedia article, since it needed proper formatting (WP:MOS) and a single source presents article neutrality and sufficient sourcing issues (WP:NPOV, WP:V). The content as it was would likely be confusing to readers without some explanation (or at least linking) of the issues and background, presented in an encyclopedic structure (see WP:BETTER, MOS:BIO). If there is currently some "questionable accuracy". it was because that source is a bit tricky to figure out. Besides, there is no point to create a straight duplicate of a Wikisource article in Wikipedia - meanwhile, a pointer to the Wikisource article would be better until a more structured biography can be developed, with various other WP:RS included for support. Dl2000 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

edits...and views
hello. I understand what you're saying in a sense, but the problem is that the current established and SOURCED view and position is that Constantine "legalized" the Christianity of the time. You can disagree with that view or conclusion all you want, but if you don't have sources for your own view, then it's just personal POV and SYNTHESIS. And then removing stuff you personally don't like or have problems with. You act as if this "Constantine formalized or legalized the Christianity of the time" is some concocted view of some past Wikipedia editor...when it's not. Your position is what needs to be sourced and proven. Wikipedia does NOT care waht is "true", only if something is SOURCED. And the view that Constantine did in fact issue an "edict" in 313 A.D., etc etc, is the sourced and established view.

The words:

After Emperor Gallienus and later Emperor Licinius and Emperor Constantine legalized and formalized the Christianity of the time in the Roman Empire, the newly recognized catholic Church sought to unify and clarify its theology.

are indeed true. And the phrase "newly recognized catholic church" is NOT necessarily referring to the "Gallienus" part of it, but the Constantine aspect of it. So? What's the big problem? It was "newly recognized" around the time of Constantine. Who doesn't know that fact?

So again, your constant removing and deleting of sentences you don't like or don't agree with is against WP policy if the sentences you are removing are established and sourced views and positions. You can have personal disagreements (and even be correct theoretically, though in this I do NOT think you really are correct), but your personal view on the "edict" (and even discounting it as even being an "edict") are NOT what are to guide your editing decisions, in true NPOV and referenced manner. Constantine legalized "Christianity" at the time, by DE-CRIMINALIZING it, and where it was NOT an arrestable offense to be a "Christian". What exactly is the big problem? Gabby Merger (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)