User talk:Deacon Michael Duncan

Welcome!
You appear to be new to Wikipedia, so I welcome you. In case you did not know, Wikipedia has polices and guidelines to follow when using Wikipedia to edit. Policies_and_guidelines Here is a page listing policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies One of the articles within those policies is this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view The word cult has a general negative bias to it, so it is non-neutral term to use to describe a group. It shows a bias. Repeated edits using this word can be considered vandalism. The information you are altering is sourced information. If you have information that says otherwise, it needs to be provided. I hope you have a pleasant time on Wikipedia.

November 2020
Hello, I'm Viewmont Viking. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- VViking Talk Edits 14:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- VViking Talk Edits 14:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Good day,

Thank you for the reply and I am sorry for the editing without reason on the fourth try.

The first editing. Had explanation and now a citation is needed. I will provide what is expected. Deacon Michael Duncan (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edit.
If any group claims to originate from x at y time, that claim needs to remain there regardless if there is a source that says otherwise to that view.

The alternative claim of view needs to be attributed without removing the one that the group believes, because regardless what another source says it won’t change the original group official stance (if there is an official statement for a group of course) or view.

An example for your case(Not an amazing example): B group refutes this and claims C is the correct year.

I apologize for any grammar errors or confusion in my wording. Lordkhain (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes sir. I will attribute the new information for the line.

I will not remove their original claim but rather attribute the information.

More information is important due to the violent nature of the group in real life Deacon Michael Duncan (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Violent isn’t a term I’d use for them. Perhaps unorthodox, with some overzealous members that come off as aggressive to other people. Lordkhain (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

As a past deacon of the said church. I was given full exposure to the church.

I do know what it is like to be in the church, as I been a member over 15 years. I know what I'm talking about. Deacon Michael Duncan (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, I hope that what I said did not seem to imply that I do not believe you know what you are talking about. I am just cautious about labelling a group as violent. That could possibly mislead people into thinking the group is something that they are not, such as a terrorist group. If I may ask, do deacons in the church know things that normal members of the church might not be privy to? Lordkhain (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes they do. And currently someone is changing the wikipedia again, after I used citations. Deacon Michael Duncan (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for this late reply, I have been very busy. I will type up a proper reply in a few days when I am on break. :) Lordkhain (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to create a page for the NCPCOG, and place their views of the WMSCOG in it? I do not not believe they have an English Wikipedia page. Lordkhain (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)