User talk:Thecorrector2315

Welcome!
Hello, Thecorrector2315, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * 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 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 need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to 'Census of Quirinius'
Hello, Thecorrector2315! My user name is Sim(ã)o(n). It seems you are new to Wikipedia, and your first edit was to the page Census of Quirinius. I have been looking at your edit, and I must declare my appreciation for it! I am a Christian; I believe in biblical inerrancy; and I believe that the text of Luke 2:2 does not contradict history. Certainly there is a possible explanation to account for the apparent inaccuracy, even though we may not know what it is. Fortunately, we have at least two possible explanations for this discrepancy. You did the right thing by presenting one of these explanations in that article. In fact, that article is absolutely biased, because it only reflects the opinions of one side — that the Gospel is wrong and the Bible is not inerrant — without saying anything about the other side — that there is no contradiction. It points out an argument used against biblical inerrancy and does not present the counter-argument against it. This is absolutely biased and against Wikipedia policy.

Nevertheless, I have no administrative power in Wikipedia, and thus I cannot change that. In fact, I myself made an edit to that page. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at it. But then, it was removed. Everything is just as it was before: still biased.

I also wrote in the article's talk page an explanation as to why I made that edit. Please see: Talk:Census of Quirinius. A conversation ensued, which you can read in the same page. I was rather angry at the unwillingness of everyone to let my edit stay, along with the counter-arguments that defend our viewpoint.

I gave up. It is not worth to keep on trying. This is a problem with many Wikipedia articles related Christianity. But this is no surprise: Jesus said we would be hated by the world; it is remarkable — and a reason to thank God — that we do not suffer many tortures and pains that the church fathers suffered. Bias on Wikipedia: oh, if that could be the only problem in the world!

Again, thank you for your willingness to do the right thing! I really appreciate it. -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Talk to me! See my  efforts!  17:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)