User talk:Micahwigs

As a member of COGIC, there is every bit a reason to include the Holiness Origins and the adoption of Pentecostalism as well as the growth and development of our church under each leader. We trace our history through our leaders. We are a Holiness-Pentecostal Church and have distinctives of both traditions. This is OUR history not yours! Second, as someone who has recited the Statement of Faith all my life, to "summarize as you put it" is another great offense. If you were a member of COGIC (yes without the "the" because that is the way that we refer to our church) you would know these things. If you want to "help" improve this article, make sure you are qualified to do so.

March 2013
Hello Micahwigs, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ''Note: The fact that you are a member of COGIC and this is content published by COGIC doesn't eliminate the copyright violation. '' Orlady (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Your addition to Church of God in Christ has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. ''The removed content is a near-identical replica of some content I found on the website I cited the first time I removed it. The fact that it was published previously (whether it was published in print or on a website) makes it subject to copyright, and Wikipedia isn't authorized to republish it. (See above for more details.) '' Orlady (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

=-=edits== You have been replacing promotional adjectives removed from the above article, eg. most influential which I had changed to "influential", & the removal of a small percentage of the excessive use of individual names, & of the removal of meaningless phrases, such as "to name a few"  and "as well";  You've also reverted every attempt I made at shortening the prose. I have reverted your edits. I am trying to make a more effective tighter article, more conforming to our encyclopedic style.

Considering the earlier comments about copyright, it seems as if you are trying to conform the article to a prebuilt text, possibly as a Close paraphrase. Besides such consideration, please see WP:OWN.

I intend furthermore to remove the "Mother" and "Bishop" designations except for the first mention of each individual. We do not use them.  DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Church of God in Christ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holiness. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverting my edit on Church of God in Christ
I think your reversion of my edit is mistaken. You have correctly ascertained that I deleted those individuals for a lack of notability, per Wikipedia policy. As a matter of fact, the list is specifically called Notable clergy. As such, it must only contain individuals sufficiently notable to have their own articles. Per WP:NOTABILITY, "For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with verifiable notability." This is also spelled out in Wikipedia's Manual of Style on lists: "the lead makes clear whether the list is complete or whether it is limited to widely-known or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles)." (Bold mine)

Your church membership may give you certain knowledge and insight to contribute to articles, but it also may make it more difficult to contribute from a neutral point of view, an essential Wikipedia tenet. So, rather than citing what you presume is my religious identification, please find me a Wikipedia policy that contradicts my reasoning in deleting those clergy without articles. --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to restore my edit. If you feel the urge to revert again, please discuss here first. I'm willing to talk this over but have yet to see a Wikipedia policy aligning with the older version of the list. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The section is called "Single-purpose editor refuses to address policy concerns with editing." --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RexxS (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.