User talk:Bordoxx

Welcome
 Hello Bordoxx, 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


 * Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
 * Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

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 [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] 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.

Bordoxx, good luck, and have fun. --Dulcimermusic 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved your contribution to a different article.
Thank you for your contribution to Unification Church. I'm sorry had to undo your edit. I didn't think the material you added belonged in that section of the article, which is about the organizations and businesses that are affiliated with the church. Also, the words you had in quotation marks were not the exact words of the Reverend Moon that were quoted in the article. Your summary of the news story was also unclear. It sounded like the mere ownership of the land was going to restore the city from sin.

On the other hand, you provided a link to an interesting news story. So I expanded your paragraph and moved it (along with your citation) to the article on Sun Myung Moon, which has a section specifically on the business interests of Moon and his church.

Thank you again for your contribution. I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia.Dulcimermusic 04:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

"Sourced" material, and objectiveness
Dear Bordoxx,

I see that you have recently set up a new user account. Just so you know, if an item is "sourced" in an article, that does not necessarily mean that it must stay in the article. Still it must be both contextually relevant to the topic at hand, and helpful towards clarifying whatever subject matter may be at hand.

If you feel that the rationale that I used to insert sourced references to actual incidents of bad recruiting practices by the UC, was a bad rationale, then by all means please explain your rationale on the talk page. I would love to hear your rationale for not having any such references in a section about that specific topic. In short, my rationale is that a good, sourced, reference should serve more to clarify the topic/ subject being addressed than to obfuscate it.

Regarding the question of, "Does/ has the UC ever employ/ employed controversial recruiting tactics?", related citations do best to assist the reader to easily and quickly answer this question for themselves as easily and quickly as possible and reasonable. Deleting sourced references which appeared to prove that the UC has or does employ such tactics, and replacing them with references about a tangential subject, i.e. "Is brainwashing even possible", seem to me to do more to obfuscate rather than to clarify the question at hand there. The section topic there is specifically about controversial recruiting practices, not about the general topic of whether or not brainwashing itself is even possible.

By the nature of your posts thus far, it is my guess that you are probably a UC member. No? If so, then you may find it sometimes difficult to be entirely "objective" when editing an article about your own church. Please consider this in your future edits.

In Wikipedia, normally if there is a disagreement about good or bad content, editors will first try to discuss their differences on the article's talk page before simply willy-nilly entirely deleting one another's contributions. I would certainly appreciate a more in-depth and thorough explanation from you as to why you feel you must completely delete all of my contributions to this article.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Unification Church
Hi Bordoxx,

I am confused by your reversion of my edit on Unification Church. You wrote "Reverted... until an administrator's verdict." I am an administrator. Why did you revert the edit?

Neelix (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not that it matters. The edit does not require an administrator's verdict, as their opinion has the same weight as anyone else's in content disputes. Consensus was reached on the talk page. I note that you have never participated in any discussion. I suggest you take it to Talk:Unification Church if you object.--Atlan (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive/Tendentious editing (Unification Church & Sun Myung Moon)
Bordoxx - As several other editors have tried to kindly say, you are engaged in WP:tendentious editing on these two articles and it can not continue. You have consistently blanked and replaced content contrary to Wikipedia's neutrality policy on religion. In fact, almost every edit you've made since your account creation has been POV.
 * You blanked cited material & wrongly accused others of vandalism [|here] and [|here].
 * You deleted the cited additions of others [|here], [|here], [|here], and [|here].
 * You repeat the same edit without convincing anyone [|here].

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Sun Myung Moon. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.EBY (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)