User talk:MuzickMaker

Welcome!
Hello, MuzickMaker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Reference Errors on 14 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the New Covenant Ministries International page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=621277575 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F621277575%7CNew Covenant Ministries International%5D%5D Ask for help])

NCMI page
Hi MuzickMaker,

I am not an experienced editor at all and it has been some time since I edited Wikipedia. So your faith in my ability is probably very much misplaced. I will however have a look atthe article and will systematically work through it. I have to warn you however that this might be a long and draining process if there are lots of disagreement.

So I will have a look and let's start together chomping at the bit.

ShiningWolf (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Shiningwolf,

I would love to hear what your overall thoughts are. Just general impressions. The page is already embroiled in a significant dispute and administrators has been invited in. The discussion is already hard and heavy and will be until the administrators look it all over. You may want to wait until Admin has made some decisions. Once those are in we will at least have a direction. In the mean time, please read everything over. One question. Are you familiar with NCMI?

Thanks

MuzickMaker (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

some advice
Hi muzickmaker. i just saw your posting at COIN and looked over the talk page of the NCMI article. Some advice for you:
 * first of all, please know that there are no deadlines here - nothing is urgent. you are all up in a tizzy about things, but there is no need.  take it slow.  Breathe.


 * Very good advice. I am taking this to heart.MuzickMaker (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * please never, never write a wall of text anywhere in wikipedia:


 * please never, never write a wall of text anywhere in wikipedia:
 * everybody here is a volunteer (except, ahem, those who are paid to edit wikipedia) and edits in snippets of time. it is incredibly arrogant (!) to expect someone to wade through a walloftext and actually respond to everything there. nobody has that kind of time.
 * somebody who does take the time to read it, is left frustrated and unable to respond in any sane way -- to actually talk with you (back and forth) about any of the many issues presented in a wall of text, because it is one big disorganized mess.  Talk pages generally have sections, one for each issue, so that focused and productive discussion can happen.  That is what editors expect.  Wallsoftext break with that convention.  (this is the kind of thing you learn, when you have been here a while)
 * wallsoftext are generally written by new editors who don't understand our policies and guidelines, and there are generally many misunderstandings on many of the issues presented... again leaving somebody who wants to respond in an impossible situation, as there levels of discussion needed, as well as specific issues to be addressed
 * Re WP:WALLOFTEXT. Thanks for pointing that out to me.  I also really appreciate the advice about how to use talk pages, and reducing the post to individual issues and writing smaller post that are more succinct.  Thank you for the very helpful correction.   I will definitely implement that. MuzickMaker (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * in general, it is a really bad idea to start editing on an article about which you are passionate. Editors who do that, want very intensely to see certain changes happen, but have no idea if the current text is actually perfectly compliant with our policies and guidelines, or if there are things wrong with it, under our policies and guidelines
 * which leads me to -- wikipedia is not a wild west. there are "rules" here -- policies and guidelines ("PAG") -  that the community has created over the years, that provide good, wise (!) guidance on common disputes.   Our PAG form the foundation for our work here.  New editors often have no clue that this foundation exists, much less what it is, and try to make arguments from "common sense" or what they "feel" is right.   They treat this place like it is a wild west, and often make things hellish.  Wikipedia would be hellish without PAG, but with them, it can actually be beautiful -- one can have rational, civil, and productive conversations.  But you have to accept that the foundation is there, and ground you discussion on it.  This is really, really important.
 * therefore, i suggest that you walk away from the NCMI article for a while. Work on other articles that you care about (but not so much!) - learn how to actually edit.  Learn how this place works.  Ask lots and lots of questions, and really listen to the answers.  If people explain their reasoning with a link to a policy or guideline, go read it, and then go back and read the conversation in light of that.  If it doesn't make, sense, ask questions so you can learn.


 * From reading scores of content discussions on a variety of articles, and from looking at editing discussions on the articles you are working on, is see most people on here feel strongly about the content and editing they are doing. I have to say I love the process of developing consensus that I see.   I just read “Good Faith Collaboration:The Culture of Wikipedia” by Joseph Michael Reagle Jr.  I would highly recommend that book for any editor, but especially new editors like me.  If you haven’t read it I think you would love it:  It is available online at: http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/


 * Just so you know right from the very beginning of my involvement on here I have been carefully and repeatedly walking through the 5 pillars and 3 core content policies and their extensive links and guidelines. I am undoubtedly still have a lot to learn, but I am very committed to following Wiki Standards and guidelines and to being taught, corrected and given direction.  I also read the three ways to handle a COI, one being, “it can be managed, with or without disclosure– for example, P might ask people to watch closely when she does anything where her judgment could be affected by the conflict.”  As soon as I read that I did exactly that.  I disclosed the exact nature of my COI and invited “the scrutiny of the Wiki editors and administration to insure that I am operating in good faith to fulfill the goals and policies of Wikipedia.”  I have also asked editors that I have talked to examine everything I say and do to insure that I am operating 100% according to wiki policies and purposes.MuzickMaker (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * once you have feet down, go back to the NCMI article Talk page, and identify the content you most want to change. Open a section on Talk, and ask for a specific change to made to that content (and provide sources if your content requires it), and explain why the change you want should go into the article, based on policies and guidelines..  And then have a calm, civil, PAG-based discussion about that with whoever is around.  When that is resolved, move on to the next thing.  One at a time.  Know that you won't always get what you want, and after you have made your best case and failed to convince other editors, really think if it is worth it, before moving to dispute resolution. (remember, you build long-term relationships here and you should really pick your battles with people)    Do you see how that would be much, much more productive?  And much less frustrating for everybody involved, including you.


 * I really value the many extremely practical counsel you have given. I believe I will be a better editor from this input.  Than you, Jytdog!!MuzickMaker (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

(and by the way, I realize this is kind of a walloftext! ironic. but i did break it down in bullet points for you) Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * that is my advice. take it or leave it, as you will!


 * I will be changing much of my approach and conduct because of your great input. It has really helped and has gotten me reading and seeking clarity to make adjustments in my approach and my involvement on here in each of the areas you have pointed out.   However, I don’t feel to step away from the NCMI article.  It is in very rough shape.   As one editor put it, WP:TNT should probably apply.  But I do believe that this can become an excellent article that meets all of the Wiki standards of excellence. I believe that I can help, and I want to “edit responsibly..”
 * I want to follow the Wikipedia position on COI editors scrupulously: “Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors. If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard. “ I will endeavor to be very careful to follow this, including requesting the reviews of other editors all along the way.
 * As an aside, part of the reason the article is in as bad a shape as it is is because just one editor has inserted almost 90% of the content and done over 130 edits between October 2013 and August 2014 (many of which were the major additions to content) without seeking input or involving any other editor. In all of these edits there has been no collaboration or consensus.  When I arrived in August I was the first editor to address issues in the talk pages with the editor.  Since my arrival other editors, almost entirely because I drew attention to the article, howbeit in some wrong ways which I will not repeat, have corrected some of the issues I pointed out in the article.
 * I will be very happy if other editors get involved, and I will invite them. The article needs it.MuzickMaker (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * good luck! Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Re:NCMI
Hey. Sorry it's taken me awhile to respond to your message. I am currently enrolled in a Master of Arts in Teaching program, so I've been a little busy. I will take a look at the NCMI article. I have to say I am not familiar with this group, but that may be a good thing because I can approach the article from a less biased perspective than someone who approves or disapproves of it. I do have a lot of familiarity with American Pentecostalism and Charismatic Christianity, so I do have a lot of background knowledge already.

The first thing I notice, just reading the lead section, is that it is quite wordy and some of the terminology is too academic sounding. We want this article to be well understood by the average English speaker. I'll probably read this article section by section and make changes as I go along. After I've read the entire article, I may be able to give more detailed feedback.

I'll try to see if I can find any other sources mentioning this group in academic journals. I've looked at the talk page. It seems that the dispute is over the characterization of the NCMI as white dominated, patriarchal, and cult-like? Wikipedia is all about reliable sources (WP: Reliable sources) and verifiability (WP:Verifiability). If the available sources report this, Wikipedia is kind of required to say that this is what the reliable sources report. However, what reliable sources say can be twisted to put an organization in a bad light as well. In any case, we have to tread lightly and always maintain a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). If you know of any other reliable sources (preferably third party sources), then that would be the best way to make the article more accurate because instead of just presenting the findings of a few sources, we can present multiple evaluations of the organization. Ltwin (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)