User talk:Michael A Clark

Michael A Clark (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)  Hi Michael A Clark, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Button sig2.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
 * If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

 Good luck, and have fun. --Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits
I've reverted your edits because they don't comply with our policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reporting what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about a subject. For new editors used to writing essays there can be a steep learning curve discovering that what is expected in a good essay may not be what is looked for in a good Wikipedia article. You should read WP:Reliable and WP:Verifiable to understand what we mean by those terms. You should also probably read WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Thus when you wrote "Set against these statements, the Bible Research Handbook of secular evidence from first class authorities, with factual information concerning the history and migrations of the Hebrew peoples, a standard research source to The National Bible School in Co Durham, provides much confirmatory evidence for the theory." - your edit wasn't verifiable because you didn't give enough information about the handbook to locate it. You claimed it has "evidence from first class authorities" which is just advertising from the Covenant web page. It might be a reliable source for saying what a certain school of though thinks, if you'd been specific, but it fails WP:RS otherwise. And it is your opinion that it provides confirmatory evidence, and your opinion - or mine - doesn't belong in the article. Let me know if you have any questions. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Ancient World
I'd very much appreciate it if you would enter into dialogue. You've created an article that doesn't meet our standards so far as style, layout, or content. We already have an article Peter James (historian). I asked you to read WP:OR and refrain from adding your personal comments to articles. And we don't publicise books by self-published authors or use them as sources. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits redux
Five years on and you are still doing the same thing. At Pseudoscientific metrology you added a copy of something you wrote yourself, a conflict of interest. At Theodore Van Kirk you added your own speculation on the name "Enola Gay", adding this also to Enola Gay. Just now at Ten Lost Tribes you added your own personal and thus subjective views calling them objective. You are making major changes and marking them as Minor. If you continue to act in his way I'm afraid that I will have to block you. You need to stop adding your own opinions to articles, you need to actually source your edits - see WP:CITE, you need to follow WP:NPOV. Whether you end up blocked is really up to you. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

July 2015
Your recent editing history at British Israelism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning: adding clearly inaccurate information at British Israelism
Wilson's article used to cite figures clearly states Present strength in Britain is hard to estimate but is probably between three and five thousand", a figure which you changed to 2 million. Doug Weller (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Your relationship with the British-Israel Association
I think it would be helpful for the sake of transparency and in light of your conflict of interest if you'd state publicly on the talk pages of any articles you edit related to British-Israelism your affiliation to the British-Israel-World Federation. See WP:DECLARECOI in particular). Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of British Israel - The Facts


A tag has been placed on British Israel - The Facts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.  Seagull123  Φ  15:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, British Israel - The Facts


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, British Israel - The Facts. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – British Israelism. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at British Israelism – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

April 2017
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to British Israelism, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. ''Please put back the maintenance template. Read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR - we need a verifiable reliable source for this, personal knowledge is what we call original use and against policy. '' Doug Weller  talk 10:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 21)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Michael A Clark/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 21)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Michael A Clark/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David. moreno 72   14:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to British-Israel-World Federation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You should be suggesting edits, not deleting well-sourced material
The article is a poor article, lacking any details of the history of the organisation for starters. You deleted well known facts from the article and added an overly detailed and promotional edit. Encyclopedias don't say "was honoured by", that's for your website. Please don't do this again. Editors who do this sort of thing continually (remove sourced material and add promotional unsourced material) do often get blocked, and those with a conflict of interest could even be banned from a topic. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 7 May 2022


 * And even without the honourable that was promotional. You need to suggest edits on the talk page, not make them, especially as you clearly don't follow our guidelines and policies. Doug Weller  talk 05:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Even where no one is likely to see that, it was a very bad idea. Read WP :AGF. This is covered in multiple reliable sources. . Doug Weller  talk 05:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please reply on your talk page, not your draft aricle.
Doug Weller talk 13:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Michael A Clark/sandbox


Hello, Michael A Clark. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 12:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

November 2020
Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must: Doug Weller talk 20:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
 * State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
 * Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.