User talk:Chelm ACCESS

December 2012
Hello, I'm Lugia2453. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Council for Christian Education in Schools, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Lugia2453 (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Council for Christian Education in Schools with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sfgiants1995 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lugia2453 and Sfgiants1995. Having come across the Council for Christian Education in Schools Page, I am attempting to add to the (limited and biased) information which is currently on the page, by incorporating factual information directly from the organisation. I do not appreciate your censorship. Please advise me what authority you perceive that you hold to delete my comments from the page. Chelm ACCESS (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Chelm ACCESSChelm ACCESS (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There were many problems with your edits, I'll point out some of them for you. Yes, the article does have many controversies about ACCESS ministries in it. However do you notice how each sentence in the controversy section is backed up by a reference that comes from a non-biased source?


 * The controversy section has less than 150 words and has 4 non-biased newspaper references. Your edits on the other hand consisted of over 900 words with two biased primary source references only. (Australian Government (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations), 2010) is not a valid reference - see my comments below. Do you honestly not see a problem with your actions here? Do you not understand how biased your actions were?


 * You appear to be a new wikipedia editor. With the exception of administrators, wikipedia editors, like us, do not have any "authority" over you. We are just more experienced in editing than you are and are accordingly giving you advice whilst removing your edits which violated multiple wikipedia guidelines.


 * I strongly recommend you read the following guidelines on wikipedia editing:
 * Conflict of interest - Based on your username it would appear you have a conflict of interest
 * Neutral point of view - Your wording was not neutral
 * PROMOTION - Your edits were overly promotional
 * SELFPUB - You cannot use self-published sources, such as anything off the ACCESS ministries webpage, to say anything that promotes ACCESS ministries or their agenda. You need independant non biased sources, such as the Herald Sun or The Age.


 * Also in the future please format your reference as per Template:Cite web. It is not appropriate to simply add references in the manner you did to the article.


 * Lastly I have a question for you. What authority do you perceive to hold that allows you to revert other wikipedia editors edits without explanation? When we removed your edits we explained why we removed them. You on the other hand reverted our edits with no explanation. These actions of yours would be considered vandalism under wikipedia's guidelines. Freikorp (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)