User talk:Kreematismos

May 2017
Hello, I'm Exemplo347. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kreematismos, please stop littering articles like Recovery_Version and The_Lord%27s_Recovery with quotes from primary sources. Wikipedia is not the place to promote or critique the writings of others. If there is something substantive to be said regarding a topic, please introduce it with proper secondary and tertiary sources respecting the need to avoid bias. 2605:E000:3017:3600:3CF6:576A:730B:33B0 (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The additions I made are EXACTLY like the material that precedes my input. They also are primary source info.Kreematismos (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please examine the article on WITNESS LEE & looks at the MANY references that are PRIMARY SOURCED.Kreematismos (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the articles are overly reliant on primary sources, the solution is not to add more primary sources. Please be respectful of other readers and help keep articles focused and concise. 2605:E000:3017:3600:3CF6:576A:730B:33B0 (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is funny. Witness Lee is verbose to the max. This particular article is VERY short. And VERY short of facts that is vital to readers to counter-act LSM window-dressing. PLEASE REVERSE your deletions. I smell bias on your part. Are you an LSM believer?Kreematismos (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a positive contribution, please familiarize yourself with some essential concepts, such as assuming good faith, what exactly is NPOV, how to properly cite sources, and  proper tone for starters. I see that Exemplo347 has already tried to help you. It might be good if you would take note of what we are saying before continuing further. 2605:E000:3017:3600:3CF6:576A:730B:33B0 (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments.Kreematismos (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Watchman Nee. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''

You can't add very long quotes written in a non-neutral tone, as if they were factual information. Quotes must ALWAYS be indicated as such, with quotation marks or blockquote tags, even if they are completely neutrally written - anything else is plagiarism and a copyright violation. But in any case the quote filled no function in the article, and violated Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. bonadea'' contributions talk 15:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I DIDN'T. The info is a direct quote from W. Lee. Kreematismos (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding quotation marks when restoring the quote. However, it still fills no function - a brief paraphrase might be relevant, but the quote is very long and not informative at all, and having an entire section that's just one long quote is not good encyclopedic standard. If you disagree, please use the article's talk page to discuss and get a consensus in favour of your version, before restoring it - please see WP:BRD. --bonadea contributions talk 04:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution filing
Your filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard had to be closed. There are several problems. First, it was very hard, especially for non-Christians, to tell what the dispute was about. (As a Christian, I recognized it as a dispute about versions of the Bible. That, and that it is a Protestant dispute, is about all that I understood.)  Second, you didn't identify the article or articles in your filing. Third, you hadn't engaged in adequate discussion at an article talk page. All forms of dispute resolution in Wikipedia should begin with discussion on an article talk page. Discussion on user talk pages is useful, but is not a substitute for discussion on article talk pages. Please try to discuss on an article talk page, such as Talk: Recovery Version. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, do not insert material from a web site into a Wikipedia article. Your insertion of the "Translation Methodology" had at least two problems.  First, by inserting the material directly from the Living Stream Ministry web site, you were violating the LSM copyright.  Second, the material was written by LSM in the first person plural ("we"), which is entirely correct for a translation committee, but Wikipedia is not written in the first person plural but impersonally.  If you wish to present the LSM's methodology as closely as possible, you may do either of two things.  First, you may quote them, provided that the quote is short and is properly attributed.  In general, a Wikipedia article should consist less than one-fourth (a rule of thumb) of quotes.  Second, you may rewrite their text in your own words, in which case "we" should be changed to "LSM", but, other than that, rewrite it to preserve the meaning so that it is a paraphrase, but not a close paraphrase.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)