User talk:12.183.178.250

September 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me that you thought that "one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted":

User talk:12.183.178.250

Thank you also for alerting me that if I think you "made a mistake," I "may leave a message on my talk page."

Yes indeed, I do think that you did make a mistake. And so I think that you should consider reverting your reversion (or reversions).

If at this point, it is appropriate for us to begin a discussion on this issue, you may do so by contacting me directly, if that is convenient for you, at fred.krumbein@thecoolcompanies.com, or by any other means that is more convenient for you (since you have demonstrated that you have expertise in getting a message to me). I look forward to hearing why it is that you found it to "not appear to be constructive". Thanx again. 12.183.178.250 (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

My reason is in the edit summary. See Help:Edit summary for why these are important and how we use them to communicate. For something simple like this it isn't usually necessary to start a discussion, but if we did, it wouldn't be by email, it would be done on the article talk page at Talk:Theranos. That's so other editors can participate.

The reason I gave in the edit summary is "revert per MOS:ACRO1STUSE". That probably seems pretty cryptic, but if you click on the link it will take you to our Manual of Style where it says in part, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses". GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you SO much. Your reply is so concise and so very helpful.

You have now clued me in to this most INSANELY and HORRIFYINGLY BAD and just plain ABSOLUTELY and SIMPLY WRONG (!) style guideline. All is now made so clear.

I certainly don't want to continue fixing this horribly bad style error every time I spot it (and have the time and energy to do so), as I've been doing for such a long time, now that I'm aware that it's often being made because writers are actually being purposely guided to make it. (Clearly this is an issue not specific to this or any other particular page.) Can't thank you enough for showing me this. (Ironically the simple, short description of this guideline, which you've pointed me to, so succinctly contradicts itself and makes clear how itself is so bad and so wrong. We must chuckle.)

So I now ask if you can let me know what is the proper and appropriate method for me to raise this concern about what looks to me to be a simple yet glaring mistake in just this one among the guidelines themselves with whomever it is that would be the one or ones to take it under consideration. And thanx again. 12.183.178.250 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad I could help! The best place to start would be the MOS talk page at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanx. I'll check that out when I get a few moments. 12.183.178.250 (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I'll ask you to take another look at the reversion in the particular article that raised this issue.

Even going by the guideline as it's currently written, don't you think that the reversion should be re-reverted back, in order to be in alignment with the "commonly known by its acronym" exception, as described in that short paragraph? (Jus' sayin'. heh, heh) 12.183.178.250 (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello, I'm GenoV84. 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 God in Abrahamic religions seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, GenoV84, for alerting me that my recent edit to God in Abrahamic religions seemed less than neutral to you and that it has been removed.

Thanks also for alerting me that if I think this was a mistake, I can leave you a message.

Your removal is clearly a mistake.

Clearly the article prior to my edit was far less than neutral.

And clearly my edit to the article provides the appropriate and needed neutrality.

It is a firmly and uncontroversially established fact that the overwhelming majority of adherents to Christianity consider the original source of this religion to be the teachings of someone called Jesus of Nazareth as recorded and promulgated in what are called the Gospels. (All of this is already pointed out in numerous articles on Wikipedia.)

The article prior to my edit made the far less than neutral contention that Christianity is a monotheistic religion as opposed to a monolatrous (or monolatristic) one.

The notation on your alert calls the edit an unexplained addition of dubious claims. This a ridiculous and unsupportable mischaracterization of the edit.

The addition is very precisely explained, and the claim is far from dubious but instead is documented in a way that can be extremely easily verified throughout Wikipedia and throughout the Web in dozens of different English translations (and other translations) of the Gospels that any reader can easily find and access within moments.

One thing that is absolutely true in this notation is that it is an addition.

It certainly was made in a very careful way that does in no way remove any prior contention that Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

The edit simply adds the conception that Christianity may be considered instead to be a monolatrous religion.

It does so, in the first place, by providing links to articles, that have already existed on Wikipedia, not only on monotheism but also on monolatry, so that any reader has easy access to become aware of these, to analyze these, and to make their own assessments.

It does so, in the second place, by providing references to precise passages in the Gospels, which purport to record the teachings of someone called Jesus of Nazareth, that any reader can easily find and access within moments in those dozens of different English translations (and other translations) of the Gospels throughout the Web, so that any reader has easy access to become aware of these, to analyze these, and to make their own assessments.

The notation on your alert calls the articles Judaism-related.

And this clearly reveals an inappropriately slanted, prejudicial, and biased focus and emphasis on the fact that the articles are related to Judaism and to inappropriately disregard and brush under the carpet the fact that the articles are also related to Christianity, as well as to numerous other religions for that matter.

And this also clearly reveals the slanted, prejudicial, mendacious, and biased further mischaracterization of the edit by inappropriately disregarding and brushing under the carpet not only the fact (as noted) that the edit very carefully does not remove a single word of prior content regarding Christianity (only making additions that are necessary to balance the prior inappropriate lack of neutrality) but also the fact that the edit very carefully does not even add a single word of content regarding Judaism.

This further mischaracterization of the edit clearly also disingenuously insinuates that there might have been content removed or content added regarding Judaism and even that there actually was content removed or content added regarding Judaism (which there was not!).

In centuries past, there has been vast persecution of any who would voice views differing with the establishment's conventional wisdom of what the principles of any religion are and has been the unrelenting determination to quash any attempts to make public any such differing views.

My understanding is that in the 21st century, Wikipedia has been dedicated and devoted to using current technology to ensure that anyone will be able to access neutral, unslanted, unprejudicial, unbiased, verifiably documented, and clearly (and easily findably and accessibly) referenced views both that support and that differ with the conventional wisdom.

I hope that my understanding has not been wrong and that Wikipedia's dedication and devotion to keeping all neutral views unhidden has not fallen by the wayside.

I trust that, upon your more careful review, you will restore these necessary neutral edits. 12.183.178.250 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Editing on Wikipedia must be based on the core WP policies and guidelines Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and more specifically Wikipedia:No original research; by looking at your recent edits on Judaism-related articles, it's evident that you didn't care to follow any of these core policies ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] [14], [15]). Moreover, writing down a ridiculous wall of text entirely made up of bad faith assumptions, deliberate aspersions, insults and personal attacks doesn't help your case either. GenoV84 (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to History of the Jews in Canada, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanx for the heads-up, GenoV84. But I don't quite understand what you're referring to.

This "History of the Jews in Canada" page sounds familiar; I recall correcting some fairly minor--although confusing--typographical errors, but it's been several days, and I don't recollect what they were. I don't recall removing any content or templates (I don't know what a template in this context is, sorry) at all.

Would you please let me know what my edits (in particular whatever it is that you're referring to as removal of "content or templates") were. Thanx so much. 12.183.178.250 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

---