User talk:Afoster08

June 2016
Hello, I'm JudgeRM. I noticed that you made a change to an article, University Bible Fellowship, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JudgeRM 19:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at University Bible Fellowship, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. JudgeRM 19:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry; I should have looked at the beginner's guide before I started editing. I'm concerned about the vast amount of libelous information contained on this Wikipedia page.  I've seen other pages that have things marked as in dispute.  How can I dispute the information?  Afoster08 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Since a lot of the information you've disputed (and I'm including the edits you made from an IP before you created this account) is backed up by reliable sources, you'll need to find other independent sources that are equally or more reliable to refute the claim. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's going to be hard to disprove a negative (i.e. find a source that negates these specific statements), but I guess that's what I'll have to attempt to do. I think "reliable" should be used loosely with some of these sources. It's difficult when the person who wrote the initial page makes a statement and then backs it up with a website that's written in Korean (citation 2) or a website that has a name on a list of other names without any substantiation for the claim (citation 3) or a website that has two churches listed and then makes a general claim that one of them is problematic but it doesn't say which one (citation 4). I'm not saying all of the references are dubious like these (citation 5 looks like a person's honest opinion of their experience with the church), but there's certainly bias on the side of the writer, who makes a lot of claims as though they're fact rather than just one side of the story. But, I will endeavor to find reliable sources, so this page is more truthful. Thanks for your input.