User:SAWassen

Hi, I'm here mostly to keep Continuing Anglican history accurate and up-to-date. I will also make other edits according to my interests and need to make everything in good order. If there's something you think is notable and needs to be added, drop me a line. If you think something is wrong, drop me a line.

Articles I have created

 * Diocese of the United Kingdom
 * Province of Southern Africa
 * Monastere Saint-Benoit (translated from the French, and now substantially revised in the English edition)
 * St. James Anglican Catholic Church (Cleveland, Ohio)
 * Chandler Holder Jones

Articles I have substantially expanded

 * Anglican Catholic Church
 * Continuing Anglican movement
 * Congress of St. Louis
 * Mark Haverland

Why not my church? Why can you do this and not me?
Wikipedia isn't a free for all. It does have rules. As an encyclopedia, it tries to be objective. You aren't allowed to pay someone to make a Wikipedia page for you. You're not allowed to edit the Wikipedia page of a company/organization/church you own/run/are bishop of. Maybe if you are super-objective, and just state facts that are notable and relevant, and back it all up with third-party citations, and don't try to "own" the page, then it could be ok, maybe. If you don't advertise the fact that you are trying to run the page with a company branded account. That's just Wikipedia rules, and if you don't want to be banned here you have to follow them,

Also, notability and third-party citations. Wikipedia does not try to include every bit of information in the world. A Wikipedia page should cite information that is notable - i.e. worth the world reading about, and public - i.e. not just referencing internal documents. While churches document most of their happenings in their own newsletters or websites, it is best if these facts are corroborated by neutral thurd-party sources as much as possible, such as newspaper articles, or online news aggregators, or books and journal articles. Is something not mentioned by any neutral third-party source? Then it might not be notable enough to mention on Wikipedia. Again, that's just Wikipedia rules.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for press releases. It wants facts and neutrally worded information. Long paragraphs with effusive positives, with no citations to back up any of the information, will probably get deleted. Don't take it personally, it's just against the rules.