Which is ''not'' how you edited that article. You stated that it was believed by the majority, when actually it's the majority in one country according to one poll.
3 polls, have you read the links in question?
I'll disregard the rest of your name calling, mistatements of my position, and personal attacks. I thought people who read encyclopedias were better than this?
SS
On 4/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 01:05:00 +0200, you wrote:
Encyclopedias are not about persuasion, they are about cataloging facts (like the % of people who believe in God in a given country).
Which is ''not'' how you edited that article. You stated that it was believed by the majority, when actually it's the majority in one country according to one poll.
I'd appreciate it if you two stopped the rhetorical games and one-upsmanship, and focused on trying to help improve the articles in question.
And I'd appreciate it if you stopped making tendentious edits to support your highly specific POV and started "writing for the enemy", and indeed stopped viewing every member of the community who disagrees with you as the enemy.
Improving the articles is easily achieved by the simple expedient of reverting your POV edits.
But I salute your chutzpah in coming to this list expecting to have others support your tendentious editing.
For example, providing a citation to [[Socialism]] showing that the socialist international opposes racism, and removing the statement currently there (that socialism opposes racism) would be a sign of rigour.
And providing a verifiable citation to show that socialists are more prone to racism than any other group would be an ideal staring point for making the assertion in the first place. You have a history of adding contentious text and then challenging others to disprove it. This reversal of the burden of proof is one of the key criticisms on your RfC.
People who assume that theirs is an "informed, scientific opinion" in contrast to others who merely cite facts need to leave their opinions at the door. Books of reference are to have one agenda alone, the cataloging of accurate information. Simply because that information does not suit your POV is no reason to exclude it. Please review
Don't be an ass. Informed scientific opinion, even among many scientists who are also Christians, is that humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l