Note: I usually respond on your talk page.
Hola. Anamexis ( talk) 16:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Please be careful. In this edit, what you reverted was not vandalism; Mifter was taking verified DYK nominations and moving them into the queue, where they wait to be featured on the main page. Thank you for your consideration, — Politizer talk/ contribs 00:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Very sorry about that. Realized right after I edited and felt like an idiot. anamexis ( talk) 00:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking back at it - were you calling my edit original research, or the one I reverted? Because the one I reverted was the original research, added by someone trying to add their own personal moral beliefs to an article about a very specific, dogmatic concept.
If you thought my edit was the OR, I apologize for getting so mad - I thought you were trying to say that because the previous edit was good faith, it should be kept even though it was original research. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, this:
- "And while the discrete sins themselves are dogmatic, the interpretation of them is not (as evidenced by abortion.) But whatever, I'm not going to mess with it."
- Is exactly what I mean - classifying abortion as a sin of wrath is a matter of dogma. Eating meat is not, and is completely individual. Sorry for saying that so aggressively, but the article already has a huge problem with people adding their own interpretations and completely trashing the article. The only OR in that edit was the addition that I removed - unless you weren't actually checking what was changing in the article, I could only assume you were saying the OR should stay in the article. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)