Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Money. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 19:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Money, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 12:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your addition is unsourced therefore unverifiable. It amounts to original research. It is not acceptable on Wikipedia unless you can cite an independent reliable sources for it. Until then no matter what your "straw poll" says it cannot be added to the Money article. Gwernol 13:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- My straw poll shows what the others are saying about the subject. Wheither a Bible's quote is original research or not, this is also YOUR POV, not everyones POV. InMatmonWeTrust 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of course a Bible quote isn't original research, but the long paragraph filled with your interpretation of that Bible quote is. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to publish your interpretation of the Bible or any other source. This is not my point of view, its the settled policy of Wikipedia whihc I for one respect. Gwernol 17:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- I for one also respect settled policies of Wikipedia. But they way someone interprets a policy, its a POV. I also agree with the policy you are mentioning, but this is not the case, and you are doing a wrong interpratation of the policy. InMatmonWeTrust 14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- If your material is not original research then it must be a paraphrasing of an independent, verifiable, reliable source. You can easily prove me wrong by citing that source. This will instantly show that this is not original research. Gwernol 17:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are still interpreting wrong the policies. I think Bible is a verifiable and reliable source. It is not an independant, but there is no policy that requires independant sources. And of course I can cite my source, it is Mathew. I removed all my interpretations, and I proposed only Bible's text to be inserted. What do you think about it? InMatmonWeTrust 08:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the Bible quotation, I'm talking about the paragraph that you wanted to put in before that where you gave a long interpretation of the quote. That paragraph was clearly original research. As I've said at Talk:Money, I'm fine with the quotation being added to the article as long as its not accompanied by an interpretation of it. The problem has always been your insistence on putting your own interpretation into the article. That's original research. Gwernol 12:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are still interpreting wrong the policies. I think Bible is a verifiable and reliable source. It is not an independant, but there is no policy that requires independant sources. And of course I can cite my source, it is Mathew. I removed all my interpretations, and I proposed only Bible's text to be inserted. What do you think about it? InMatmonWeTrust 08:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- If your material is not original research then it must be a paraphrasing of an independent, verifiable, reliable source. You can easily prove me wrong by citing that source. This will instantly show that this is not original research. Gwernol 17:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I for one also respect settled policies of Wikipedia. But they way someone interprets a policy, its a POV. I also agree with the policy you are mentioning, but this is not the case, and you are doing a wrong interpratation of the policy. InMatmonWeTrust 14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of course a Bible quote isn't original research, but the long paragraph filled with your interpretation of that Bible quote is. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to publish your interpretation of the Bible or any other source. This is not my point of view, its the settled policy of Wikipedia whihc I for one respect. Gwernol 17:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- My straw poll shows what the others are saying about the subject. Wheither a Bible's quote is original research or not, this is also YOUR POV, not everyones POV. InMatmonWeTrust 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)