non-neutral language, such as that non-Stratfordians "claim" and "assert" and "declare", rather than the more neutral "state". Either start a new section or keep to the same section.ġ.
#Hanging indent in atlantis word processor full
I ask that you PLEASE don’t crap this section up with the generalised complaints that this page is full of.
I found some specific objections buried in the pile of type above and I’m bringing them down to address them point-by-point. Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Reply Zweigenbaum’s objections NinaGreen ( talk) 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Reply I agree I crossed the line of civil discourse and apologise for the fanatic comment and retract it, and also refractor my other comment. You are complaining about original research and you think this is a reliable source proving that the SAQ is an acceptable academic topic and not a fringe theory? And I specifically created this subsection to list specific NPOV violations in the article so we could all take a look at them, not to revisit your assertion that the SAQ is a minority rather than a fringe view. In addition, you have now crossed a line by calling me obsessive, and a 'fanatic'. You will not correct problems which have been identified yourself, you will not allow other editors to correct them, and you are trying to control the manner in which other editors work and to waste their time by demanding that they provide you with a concise list of problems which have already been identified on this Discussion Page and on the Peer Review page, and which you ignored when they were identified.
You are clearly of the view that you own the page, in contravention of WP:OWN. You now insist that I and other editors provide you with a concise list of the problems which have already been mentioned. You have refused to do anything to correct the problems yourself, and have reverted every substantive edit I've made to try to correct them. Numerous examples have been offered, both here and on the Peer Review page, of specific problems with the article in those areas. I and other editors have pointed out that the SAQ article does not meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines because it is not neutral, contains original research, and cites otherwise reliable sources for points which the sources do not support.
0 kommentar(er)
