User talk:Christadelphianeditor

Book Spam
Hi Edgarde. I greatly respect the vast amount of time you put in to your work and sheer respect [I speak quite genuinely, glancing through your work] leads me not to enter into any edit wars with you. I can only say I notice your removal of links and comments I submit out of fear of "bookspam". I don't wish to argue with you, but I'd like to assure you that the references submitted are all to relevant material and are not in any sense appropriate to the word "spam" in any context. For example, the edits relating to the Books of Enoch and Jude were pointing out that these books are connected, and actually there is material online which lists Jude's allusions / quotations to Enoch. That's hardly what I'd call "spam" of any sort. However I can appreciate your concerns about what might appear to be out of context spam. So all that said, no bad feeling, how shall we leave it? Having given these assurances, can I revert some of the changes? If you wish to re-revert them [to invent a word], that is fine, let's leave it there. -- Christadelphianeditor


 * Thanks for contacting me, Christadelphianeditor.


 * I need to ask you to refrain from restoring links to Duncan Heaster's websites. If you have information to contribute that can be cited to a reliable, non self-published source, that would be great. However, many of your links say in effect here's a good book or site on something tangentially related &mdash; that isn't very helpful to readers, and the idea that this writer's work in particular should be linked emphasises one person's point of view unduly.


 * If you haven't yet read Wikipedia's list of policies and WP:NOT, I'd recommend them.


 * Incidentally, Wikipedia has had one or two waves of links to realdevil.com in the past year or so. If you have a sense of what causes this, it would be helpful if you could help discourage the practice. / edgarde 06:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Edgarde, thanks for your note on my talk page, not sure if replying on yours is the right way to respond, forgive me if so. The links to DH's writings are not to self-published material, as his books are not published by himself; nor do I consider such links irrelevant. It's inevitable that anyone seeking to link to the Christadelphian perspective on issues is going to consider linking to something he's written as he's the most prolific of the Christadelphian authors, and his writings are mostly visible online. My intention is to give the current Christadelphian perspective at relevant points in Wikipedia articles; of course at times I may be pushing irrelevancies and you're free to knock those out, but I hope I've explained where I'm coming from. Thanks again, quite sincerely, for your efforts. -- Christadelphianeditor


 * Thanks, Christadelphianeditor. Any reply that makes it to me is "the right way". I am watching this thread on your talk page, so you can reply here if that is more convenient for you.


 * Articles on general religious topics
 * To the best of my knowledge, the Christadelphians are not a major branch of Christianity ("major" in terms of size or influence, with no other judgement intended), so Duncan Heaster's writings cannot be considered generally representative, especially in broad articles like Islam. Nor would they likely merit a "Christadelphian" section on general articles on Christian concepts like Book of Enoch. There are hundreds of Christian sects, and on topics not closely related to Christadelphians their POV probably only merits inclusion when they have an influential or exceptional position &mdash; Devil in Christianity (presuming your link is not otherwise inappropriate) seems like a very good addition. See WP:UNDUE for policy on this.


 * Otherwise every Christianity-related (or simply religious) topic would need dozens of links and subcategories representing different sects, or hundreds of links and subcategories representing different writers.


 * Articles specific to Christadelphianism
 * The Christadelphian perspective is most relevant in articles about the Christadelphians. I don't know to what degree Duncan Heaster's standing in that church makes his writings generally representative of that group, so I can't comment on whether your links are appropriate from such topics, but in general adding verifiable information is more helpful than adding external links, and care should be taken that links should not be used as promotion. See WP:EL and WP:COI for policy on this.


 * Moral, philosophical and theological writing tends to represent the beliefs of a single writer &mdash; an exception to this is when a religious group accepts a text as part of their belief, such the Bible (within Christianity) or Papal bulls (within Catholicism) &mdash; so writing specificly about a religious group works better as a reference on the beliefs of that group. See WP:NOR for policy on this.


 * Thanks for the compliments, and for refraining from reverting articles. / edgarde 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Appeal to preserve talk page comments
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. / edgarde 16:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)