User talk:Ewan G Keenowe

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. SFC9394 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul

Thankyou for your comment. However, if you wish to debate an article, make a change or add your opinion to the talk page but refrain from leaving comments/opinions on the article page itself. Draicone 14:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Westboro Baptist Church

Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --The Ungovernable Force 17:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--The Ungovernable Force 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as an administrator I must agree with The Ungovernable Force here. Would you please consider reverting your edit to remove the term "hate group" and then we can discuss the matter on the talk page? I do agree that some mention of the organisation's notoriety should be made in the article, and perhaps this should be reflected in the lead paragraph, but I think the consensus is that the term "hate group" is best avoided because it makes Wikipedia appear biased (even if we're not). --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. I understand that wikipedia must keep a formal unbiased tone.

Apology accepted, I'm really happy to see it. For future reference, if you want to label a group like that in a negative way (like "hate group", "terrorist", "white supremacists" etc), follow the example in the second sentence--be sure to say who has labelled them that, because groups rarely claim the label themselves and it is pov for us to label them directly.The Ungovernable Force 20:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder...

Please try to refrain from saying incivil things in edit summaries, like you did in your latest edit's summary to Led Zeppelin. This is just a heads up, not a warning, but if you continue, other editors (including myself) may be forced to warn you. :) Srose (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and stop inserting your own pov into the Westboro Baptist Church article (again). The Ungovernable Force 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I added that to the westboro article is because it says that they are a hate group on fred pehlps' article.

Then cite the source. The Ungovernable Force 20:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Qur'an as the Literal Word of God

Hello. I understand that Christians take the Bible to be the inspired word of God; this does not hold true for Muslims' beliefs of the Qur'an, as all Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God, and this does not indicate that they are all fundamentalists. Fundamentalists interpret the Qur'an literally where, in often cases, other Muslims take various passages metaphorically. So there's a difference between understanding the Qur'an to be the literal word of God, and interpreting it literally or metaphorically. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]