User talk:Waitingwatch

Welcome[edit]

Hello Waitingwatch, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Roleplayer Good luck, and have fun. --role^player 00:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Church of God[edit]

Good compromise edit, Waitingwatch! Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Church of God (as a "Christian denomination")[edit]

Slainte, Waitingwatch! I have a bit of a problem: Some time ago, there was a heated debate between supporters and detractors of the United Church of God over how to characterize the church. Detractors tended to call it a "cult", whilst supporters called it something equally as POV (I don't remember what now). At that time, I offered "Christian denomination" as a compromise edit. I have since tried to find quality sources to bolster this label. What I've added to the article represents my best efforts to date. While I agree that the sources have been inadequate, I fear that without something there, the edit wars will begin anew. Suggestions on what we should do? Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff - this is a tricky one. It is a relatively new church and doesn't follow mainstream teachings. (e.g. doesn't believe in trinity, teaches a mixture of new and old covenant, teaches british israelism, etc.) I haven't been able to find reputable links for whatever it might be.Waitingwatch (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance seem to indicate that it's a Christian denomination, or at least a "splinter group" of the Worldwide Church of God, in their page about the latter. (See http://www.religioustolerance.org/wwcog.htm .) Problem is, they don't actually state that the UCG is a Christian denomination, though it can be inferred. -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jeff - UCG can definitely be viewed as a form of Christianity. The best name for their teachings is 'Armstrongism' - i.e. a church that teaches Herbert Armstrong's (old Worldwide Church of God) teachings. (They don't like this label - they prefer to call themselves 'Christians'.) I think the tricky part is that they are Christians on one hand, but definitely not mainstream because they teach some unique doctrines that are not ordinarily associated with Christianity. e.g. British Israelism, the rejection of the trinity, etc. etc. My inclination would be to describe them as a 'unique form of Christianity, known to non-adherents as 'Armstrongism'.' Waitingwatch (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. As I can see at least one instance where you haven't used it, I presume it isn't set in preferences. In any case, please make sure you only use it when appropriate in the future. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Hi - I do have it pre-checked in preferences and remember to uncheck in future. Waitingwatch (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Israelism[edit]

Hello Waitingwatch.

I see that you have made some comments in relation to the above article, comments which I think are relevant to the situation at hand, so I am contacting you to request any input you may be able to contribute.

The situation at hand is that I made what I felt were some basic edits, and they were repeatedly deleted by a contributor, even after I made an adjustment.

I am basically new to this scenario, so I hadn't been aware of the Talk page, etc. At any rate, I have been reading the talk page, and the content of my edit had already been largely addressed by other contributors, including yourself.

So, since I am tackling the deplorable state of the article in question and intend to do a significant edit, I would like to try and build a little consensus, and the more the merrier in the that process!

I would appreciate it if you could take the time to read through the recent entries on the Talk page and participate in the course of events leading to as substantial an edit as possible.

Thanks. Ubikwit (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]