User talk:Veryfunkypants

January 2017

Even though you did provide a source, it only mentioned one church in New Mexico burning the books; and Harry Potter books were not the only thing mentioned. The statement would also need reworked to make clear that it is the opinion of one church that the book not be read. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. The article cannot make an unattributed statement that the book should not be read by children. That clearly needs to be attributed to Christ Community Church, the organization in New Mexico mentioned in the BBC article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, you may be blocked from editing. This edit is a clear violation of NPOV. —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My editing is not commentary, it is fact. By the way, I cited a source with information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants (talk • contribs)

Also, since you refer to "unchristian magic", what qualifies as "christian magic"? —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means as a schoolteacher, I do not approve of this material.Veryfunkypants (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is your addition really based on the source or on your personal beliefs? —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly on how the book is received by some people and religious centers. Veryfunkypants (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the reaction of one church barely belongs in the article. It certainly doesn't belong in the intro. If we had a section in the articles about public response, then it might be reasonable to say something like this: "However, Christ Community Church in Alamogordo, New Mexico, burned copies of the book after its pastor claimed that 'Harry Potter is the devil'." —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction of one church mattered enough for BBC News UK to compose an article about it.Veryfunkypants (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything in a newspaper is worthy of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper is a source of information, Wikipedia is a source of information, and that information should not be biased.Veryfunkypants (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC) In fact, there are many people with different views on different books (including "Harry Potter"), and this information would make people think before reading explicit material.Veryfunkypants (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Veryfunkypants! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Veryfunkypants, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Veryfunkypants! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Osarius (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

April 2018

I have reverted your edits to Religion in Russia. Not only did you remove material from the article, but your edit summary, "Fact addition", was misleading. Please edit more carefully. Given your history with disruptive editing, please edit more carefully in the future, lest your account be blocked for disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources to my fact addition. Your accusation is misleading. -Veryfunkypants

You did add the section about Perestroika, but you removed the 2018 study about the decline of religion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That study may be offensive to some people, and due to tolerance, it needed to be removed. -Veryfunkypants

Wikipedia is not censored. It will, by its nature, contain material that offends various people. Let the reader beware. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how religion is declining in Russia if the country is over 70% Orthdox Christian. About offending several people: Example: C. Fred is disrespectful, he does not care about offending others, and attempts to supress virtue signaling whenever he can. Let yourself beware, this may offend you.