User talk:HOTCC

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 09:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Blessed Virgin Mary has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. CalumH93 (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Blessed Virgin Mary. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. CalumH93 (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 09:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not Vandalizing anything at all I am simply adding th eCalvin view to the veneration of Mary page. It is not a catholic page it is a page on Mary and the views on her and adding the calivin discussion is not vandalizism just because you don't agree with it. I didn't remove your view why should I not be able to add the calvin view as well?

If you want to present the Calvin view, then you should first learn how to present it AS the Calvin view. Your edits speak of the Calvin view as though it were the gospel truth. Furthermore, it violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and any other number of wiki policies. You're smart enough to know that declaring outright that veneration of Mary is idolatry in your edits isn't going to fly in an encyclopedia.Farsight001 (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Merely copypasting text isn't encyclopedical. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 10:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It does fly it was copioed off of the wiki page on calvin and has been on there for years good grief if your going to argue then argue correctly. YOu dont like it because it coes against your belief of mary and your afraid soemone mihgt hear a different view. The view will fly in an encyclopedia as a view of the calvinist view just as the one on the page says it is the catholic view and because it is accurate and in every church in america except the catholic church as being the calvinist view. I did not say it was right nor wrong I said it was the view of teh calvinist just as you have said it is the view of the catholics. I did it because both views should be represented on the page and you are only stoping it because you did not agree with what it said. I did not delete anything from your veiw at all I think everyone should hear both sides and know what the differnces are. ok did i do it to suit you now?

I added the change and said what it was and where it was from and all of the other stuff that wiki says and has accepted for years, how is that?

If it was copied from the wiki page on Calvin, then that page has some issues that you have thankfully brought to our attention. Let me point out that wikipedia articles are now allowed as sources of information for other wiki articles. So we did "argue" correctly in the first place. You can't just copy and paste it like that. I don't mind having a opposing view, which if you read the articles you keep inserting your c&p into, you would see already have some opposing views. It is not written in an encyclopedic manner, it does not have proper citations, and it was copied and pasted. I don't care what the content is, something like that doesn't belong here. And while you personally claimed it was just the view of the Calvanists, the copy and paste itself did not. Rather, it stated opinions as clear and actual fact, which it cannot do. Lastly what you personally think about how the article should be set up or about what views should be displayed is irrelevant. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia that anyone can create rules for and trust their own opinion for. Wikipedia has rules and guidlines, and so far, you've violated at least a dozen with your edits, and even more by accusing us outright of deleting your edits just for not liking the other point of view. So stop for a while, actually look through the policies that the account sign up menus suggested to you, and then try again.Farsight001 (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)