Richwierd

July 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Heliocentrism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Gwernol 22:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you please explain why you thought that this was "commentary or my own personal analysis"?

How does it differ from the paragraph in "Philosophical discussions"? Would you not agree that If we were to use the a broad definition used above then that paragraph would seem to give commentary and personal analysis. For example "These ideas can be found in a range of Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic and Latin texts." has no supporting notes, and is lacking a formal tone due to it being vague. There are many other such examples in the artical.

If it just a matter of references I have several references of quotes that support my entry that was deleted.

Thanks for the help. This way I can improve my efforts in the future.Richwierd (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have been unable to locate the standards for “formal tone” that you noted were expected. Would you please give me the Wikipedia guidelines on “formal tone” ?

Thanks Richwierd (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the edit that I objected to: [1]. Since you did not provide a published, independent source for this edit, I can only conclude that it represents your personal viewpoint. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that all information must be verifiable from reliable sources. A second core policy is that articles must maintain a neutral point of view which means that you cannot simply include your own opinions in articles. If you have a reliable source that states this viewpoint, you are welcome to re-insert it into the article along with a citation to the source. Thanks, Gwernol 00:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I have some good published, independent source now. Before I post again I need some help.

I have not been able to locate the Wikipedia guidelines on expected “Formal tone”. Would you please let me know that link?

I would like some help in differentiating the post that was immediately removed from the posts that have no supporting references (or even a note saying a reference is needed) that make up the majority of the section in which this post was removed. Would you help me find that information in the Wikipedia guidelines?

No need to have any edits removed after the time and effort is spent to make them.:) Richwierd (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you post your proposed edit, along with the source you have, to Talk:Heliocentrism. Let the editors there reach a consensus about the proposed edit and the sources. Regarding formal tone, I'd first point out the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which means we expect the standard of writing in articles to have a degree of formality. You can read more about stylistic issues in the manual of style. On the issue of whether the rest of the Heliocentrism article is adequately sourced, I will point out that my removing your edit does not mean I endorse the rest of that article. Even if the rest of the article breaks Wikipedia's rules, does not give you permission to also break the rules. Each edit needs to comply with our rules. If you want to delve deeper into this, please take a look at our policy on verifiability which is one of our core content policies. Thanks, Gwernol 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Thank you for the suggestion, I have followed your instructions.

I was neither trying to get “permission to also break the rules” nor implying that “removing your edit does not mean I endorse the rest of that article. I asked for help in differentiating the post that was immediately removed from the posts that have no supporting references (or even a note saying a reference is needed) that make up the majority of the section in which this post was removed.Richwierd (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On noticing that Gwernol's removal of the "ref" tags from your post to the Heliocentrism talk page made a mess of the edit which you appear to want to make to the article, I set about cleaning it up. But since you have now made a subsequent edit to your text, it would not be proper for me to now "restore" what I believe you were actually proposing. I have given my reconstruction below. If it is what you wanted to propose, please feel free to replace your current text with it (minus the indents, if you wish). To do this you will need to open an edit window on your talk page and copy and paste the wikified html source. And please remember to sign your posts.

The Bible uses expressions that are similar to those sometimes used by modern scientists^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}, such as at Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and I Chronicles 16:30 that state "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

References

1.^ http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=sunrise1

2.^ http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=sunset1

3.^Imagine we could accelerate continuously at 1 g — what we're comfortable with on good old terra firma — to the midpoint of our voyage, and decelerate continuously at 1 g until we arrive at our destination. It would take a day to get to Mars, a week and a half to Pluto, a year to the Oort Cloud, and a few years to the nearest stars. Carl Sagan Page 395 “Pale Blue Dot”

4.^“the planets all seem to be close to the line of the ecliptic as the sun travels across the sky from East to West” http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/00533/Astronomy%20Web%20Site/celestialecliptic.htm

5.^The history of such views backwards towards the home planet, Terra Firma, have captivated …http://astrobio.net/news/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=872&theme=Printer

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now replied to your requests on my talk page.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)