User talk:Hlr1891

Hello: We need to talk about the image of your church in regard to it appearing on the Richardsonian Romanesque page. The wikipedia article - which I think you wrote most if not all of refer to it as being built "in the syle of Old English Gothic with a Richardsonian Romanesque flavor." the images at the RR page are supposed to be the best examples of the style, not ones with that flavor. I believe that when I first removed the image I first went to the NRHP listing and there is no mention of RR style at all. So, for the sake of discussion, what is the RR "flavor" found in the building? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the thing. Although I have been editing that article since Sept 2004, it is not my article. Which is why I prefer to discuss it with you here rather than getting into a snit fit on the article's discussion page.  i am not an architect either, but then many architects don't know all that much about architectural history.  If you look even earlier in the articles history (before I got in) you will see an editor named Wetman.  I think.  I have not contacted him since we started this discussion, so how would you feel about asking him what he thinks?  He is still a very active editor. Or I'll ask. I trust his judgement, he is a lot more rational that me, I tend to be on the emotional side of that equation.  Sound like a plan?  Carptrash (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am quite sure that I would not call the building Richardsonian Romanesque, so let's see what someone else thinks. Carptrash (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the picture of Trinity Church (Boston) and compared it with either of the churches that you have mentioned? I see very little in common with it. Your source seems to feel that any church built with rusticated field stone is RR. I disagree. Carptrash (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of thoughts. In wikipedia (at least as i practice it) doing one's research and presenting it as you have done counts for a lot.  I have already asked Wetman for his opinion, but all things being equal (which they rarely are) I am content with the picture staying, though I have not changed my opinion.  I just don't always need to get my way.  Secondly, when you post a reply or furthering a discussion as you are doing at my talk page, if you place a colon at the start of your posting, and then a two colons, etc. it will automatically indent your posting, making it easier to read.  Finally, and perhaps most important to me, I had nothing to do with that business below. In fact I do not really agree with that policy.  Don't let it deter you.  Keep your scholarship steady, use footnotes and proceed undaunted.  Wikipedia can be the internet version of Pilgrims Progress, so soldier on.  Carptrash (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, in my opinion more than the world's best encyclopedia. It is also a great social experiment as to whether folks from all over the world with the complete spectrum of beliefs can get together and create something wonderful. Mostly we are. I have something like 1,500 articles on my watchlist and I try and make sure that nothing that doesn't belong in the article gets in. You might stick with just watching 3 or 4, but if you do then those articles will be okay. Others spend their time making sure that the rules are all obeyed and are more than willing to quote you chapter and verse on the subject. That is why it is sometimes useful to have allies that you can go to. So welcome on board. Carptrash (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Following the request below to submit name change. Please note the instructions say I must log out and not log in again until new name takes effect. This means I will be unable to repsond to concerns raised until new name is activated.

Ongoing problem
Hello Pmucpastor. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Pullman Memorial Universalist Church, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * 1) Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * 2) Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * 3) Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * 4) Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your username
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Pmucpastor) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because our policy does not allow for usernames that represent an organization, like a church. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Despite the concerns that have been expressed, I want to thank you for taking the time to participate at Wikipedia and I'm available to help with any questions you might have. --  At am a  頭 18:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Following your request to submit name change. Please note the instructions say I must log out and not log in again until new name takes effect. This means I will be unable to repsond to concerns raised until new name is activated.
 * That's for technical reasons, but hopefully it shouldn't take long to fulfill your request. Thanks so much for doing this. Also, I'll try to keep an eye on your church's article to help out if you or anyone else needs help. --  At am a  頭 22:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)