Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. That means no bias either way, but neutrality and objectivity in tone and wording. And no single view or position should be endorsed, especially where there's contention or controversy, even if it's "majority view" (which is just "majority bias".) NPOV takes precedence even over "majority view", as NPOV is one of the main pillars of WP, and "majority view" (though to be considered) is not even listed as a pillar. Articles should advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. When conflict arises over neutrality, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
Hi, Recently there have been many additions of a religious nature throughout the article that some editors feel is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. I started a section on the talk page to discuss it. I have been trying to selectively prune out the more obvious coatrack additions but I don't support section blanking. I suggest you participate on the talk page about the ongoing situation as I have a funny feeling it will become more heated. Veriss (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hello. Thanks for your attention to this. And yes I did notice that matter being brought out in the Talk page. I thought that maybe it would resolve itself, get tweaked, with trimming, and more NPOV perhaps. I think the section is probably valid, as there was definitely a significance or connection with religion and faith and spirituality. Ala, one of the trapped miners himself being religious or a spiritual leader figure, and also one miner said that he never prayed before in his life, but he learned and got into heavy praying during those weeks in that deep mine, and also the religious paraphernalia. etc....
The IP "96" summarily removed the whole thing, with no explanation. Which arguably violates WP:VANDTYPES. Hence why I undid it. It was vandalism and wholesale blanking, with no comment or rationale, also in violation of WP:NOBLANKING, as that IP never discussed it on Talk, and did not even put an edit comment (against edit summary disputes), and the section has some merit, and is well-sourced and well-covered. Though it could use some re-working. Thanks again. ResearchRave (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, thank you for joining the discussion. I'm not very religious so look at the issue of discussing the role of the Catholic traditions from more of a social and academic view point then a spiritual one. I think it should be discussed in the article but without the appearance of proselytizing, which could be difficult. Perhaps a workable solution can be crafted to satisfy both sides. Thanks again. Veriss (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please do not cut and paste text from other sources as you did with this edit on Andy Shaw (copied from his online bio) without using quotation marks or block quotes, or some other way to indicate that the words were copied. You copied the text without indicating that the new text was a quote, or even pointing to the source at the end of each copied sentence. This is a major violation of WP sourcing policy. Please read WP:QUOTE for more on how to quote sources. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In sincere appreciation for your dedication and hard work reviewing and verifying Spanish language sources, translating text and helping to explain the importance of various aspects of Latin American cultural while we worked hard on the 2010 Copiapó mining accident and its related family of articles. ¡Muchas gracias! Veriss (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ttonyb (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that there may be a point. While this company has some notability (obviously), it may not be well-sourced enough. Not enough to firmly establish notability. There's just not that much information or references out there about this specific company. And primary sources should only be used sparingly on WP articles, once notability is established. This article has not done that, I feel. So I withdraw my contesting of it. ResearchRave (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
