91.189.141.116

March 2020

Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Maafa 21 seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

How "neutral" is this if you accept only one correct point of view - the abortionist one? 91.189.141.116 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm FranklinOfNull. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Peter Donders seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FranklinOfNull (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a highly neutral statement, that is pure fact, that is so embedded in Christianity- can it be more neutral? 91.189.141.116 (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

And I'm editing the page one more time since the explanation seems null itself. 91.189.141.116 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Only stating that priests in 19th century were intolerant towards other beliefs is far from neutral. Delete this sentence then. 91.189.141.116 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

and what is the point of talk if noone replies?

It is not personal commentary, it is neutral explanation that is designed to make the text less ambiguous than it already is - as it seems biased towards the religion 91.189.141.116 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peter Donders. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

How do i reply if there is no single person that destroys my work, but multiple?

I already created a thread. 91.189.141.116 (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You create a new topic of discussion at Talk:Peter Donders. You would want to make points about what is said in the literature about Donders, and whether the literature is accurately represented. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

---