User talk:Nathan B2/Archive 2020

Disambiguation link notification for February 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of the largest evangelical churches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manilla ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_the_largest_evangelical_churches check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_the_largest_evangelical_churches?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Evangelism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copacabana ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Evangelism check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Evangelism?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Megachurch does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. ''Megachurches are generally protestant but not always. Without an edit summary to understand the reason for your change, and without a source, it's WP:OR and will continue to be reverted. The alternative would be to explain on the article's talk page.'' Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you're making unexplained changes that are either irrelevant or otherwise unnecessary to articles and doing so without explanation. The linking is also a problem. Start explaining and working cooperatively. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Alliance World Fellowship ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alliance_World_Fellowship check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alliance_World_Fellowship?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Zamboanga
 * Good works ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Good_works check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Good_works?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Charity

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Repentance
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Repentance (Christianity), you may be blocked from editing. AnupamTalk 02:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Anupam. Parts of the text that were duplicated have been removed and other parts have been added according to the plan of the article and references, as shown in the history of the article. But if you do not agree to the changes, you are free to change. Disagreement can happen, it's part of life, but it's not a reason to intimidate others (Ownership of content). Thanks for your help. --ServB1 (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Census
You're quoting but not following Independent_sources. The infoboxes can't state the numbers as fact, they must make it clear they are a claim by the organisation. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . The infoboxes are summaries of the information already present in the article. Infoboxes should therefore not contain excessively long details (Help: Infobox). All the figures present in the infoboxes of organization, company, Christian denomination, church or religious movement on Wikipedia are on this same model. Censuses of Christian denominations or any other organization are always carried out by the organization. This is due to the fact that there is no body responsible for counting the members of a church (or any other organization). Journalists and book authors will therefore always rely on the figures provided by the organizations. A secondary source would therefore not be a better reference for factual matters (such as statistics). Identifying and using primary sources even says that for this kind of information, a primary source is preferable. Thanks for your help. --ServB1 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Evangelical theology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charity ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Evangelical_theology check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Evangelical_theology?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Marriage Course article
Hello, I would like to publish a Marriage Course article. The course is run by almost every church denomination in over 100 countries and I was wondering whether it would be possible to include the article under Evangelical Christianity? Thank you! Jakub.cz (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A-class
In order to be A-Class, an article needs per WP:ACLASS to undergo one of two formal review processes with more than one review: either at the talk page of the article or at a WikiProject. You've been tagging a lot of pages where this has not happened as A-Class. I expect you to undo your ratings. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Bacolod Evangelical Church has been nominated for merging
Category:Bacolod Evangelical Church has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"Biography" for biblical figures
See WP:FTN. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have rolled back all of the edits you made in the last two days. These seem contrary to WP:MOS as well as a violation of WP:NPOV since you were inserting Christian devotional literature as references. jps (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . The added references in the biblical articles come from books published by independent and academic publishers (B&H Publishing Group and Zondervan Academic), whether Christian or not, these authors and publishers have dealt with the subject objectively. See Citing sources and Identifying and using primary sources. Thanks for your help. --ServB1 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I read through the texts. The goals of these books was to act as devotional literature and apologetics and not as academic treatises. The publishers are not the issue. The issue is the genre. jps (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . The references are dictionaries (Holman Concise Bible Dictionary and Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary), the most objective academic reference (Tertiary source). Thanks for your help. --ServB1 (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is amazing that someone could write a biased dictionary, but it seems to happen. Best practices here include not relying on dictionaries. jps (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . To say that dictionaries are not acceptable as references, proofs are needed. According to Citing sources and Identifying and using primary sources, officially published references that support information that is not controversial are well acceptable. However, if you don't like a reference, you are free to change it (Five_pillars)! Thanks for your help. --ServB1 (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries_as_sources. jps (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If (I'm not saying that you do, but if...) you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 30 August 2020 00:42:15 (UTC)
 * Hello . The added references in the biblical articles come from books published by independent and academic publishers (B&H Publishing Group and Zondervan Academic), whether Christian or not, these authors and publishers have dealt with the subject objectively. See Citing sources and Identifying and using primary sources. Finally, the references are dictionaries (Holman Concise Bible Dictionary and Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary), the most objective academic reference (Tertiary source). Thanks for your help. --ServB1 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Evangelicalism into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . I was indeed the sole author of the text copied in another article, as the history shows. Thanks for your help. --ServB1 (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New International Version, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Portuguese and Spanish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Organization name
Hi. The official website of the organization can be a little tricky, because it uses the shorter name almost everywhere - but it is not a new official name. The official website of the organization, per the link found in the article, still uses the full ten-word name as used in the opening text of the article, and acknowledges on its own "About" page that it simply uses “The King Center” for short. The full name has not changed. The short-hand title "The King Center" was already set up as a redirect nearly fifteen years ago, and is one of five redirects to the article. Jmg38 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christianity and homosexuality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Houston.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)