User talk:NoLiesJustFactsBro23
just talk facts bro
Hi, I'm PRP-SPHLV. You said that "It is in our philosophy that knowledge should be accessible to all, even at times when some may not like to hear it, or when attempts to silence certain knowledges are being pursued." But we have to distinguish knowledge and rumors right? If it's not true then it's not a knowledge. I just wonder if wikipedia allow rumors. If it's base on fact and there's a prove then I think it's appropriate. That's how I think. What do you think about it?
PRP-SPHLV (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi PRP-SPHLV
The line between knowledge and rumor is sometimes very thin and may even appear indistinguishable. Thus, it is our utmost priority here in Wikipedia to distinguish such lines accordingly. So, to explain it in a way that you might understand, let me put it in an analogy. Let's say, you believe in God. You have your reasons for believing in there is a God. I may disagree with you. And I may have my own set of reasons on why I believe there is no God. So, which is knowledge? And which is rumor? Is the possibility of a God then a rumor? Or is it the idea of a world without a God? Well, in their own respective senses, they are both knowledges. There may be no concrete, substantial, quotable evidence for why there is a God -- but that doesn't mean that the possibility of one existing, isn't a knowledge that should be shared with others. It doesn't mean that it should be completely silenced and presented as mere "rumor". Both sides of the argument should always be shared for the consumer to decide. The secular might say, "I have all the scientific proofs for the non-existence of God, while the believer has nothing!" The secular might even be able to quote thousands and thousands of the newest scientific journals that prove that the world had totally been created by pure chance. But that doesn't mean that the believer's point should be totally discredited. Knowledge, of any kind, should never be silenced. In the same ways, the less pleasant aspects of your organization, should be presented equally.
Yours truly, NoLiesJustFactsBro23
P.S. I know you know it's true. It's just your boss telling you it isn't.
NoLiesJustFactsBro23 (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi! You said that, "Please feel free to ask me any other questions about conduct on Wikipedia, or leave any comments if need be." in my talk page,and I want to ask If I have a statement from the School to explain the Controversies, can we edit the paragraph?
Because I can see There's a wikipedia: Neutral Point of View that's written: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
So, I'm questioning about the reliability of the controversies content. Could you give me any explanation?
Thanks PRP-SPHLV (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
If you believe that a page includes content with an unfair editorial bias, and can present an adequate case to Wikipedia as to why and how it is not neutral, then the Wikipedia admins will proceed to delete the sections accordingly. This would be similar to what I did before with your account's edits in the page you are referencing to -- as you have shamelessly promoted your organization on Wikipedia without facts as well.
Best wishes, NoLiesJustFactsBro23 (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
June 2019[edit]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Pelita Harapan School, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)