User talk:Panda317

June 2017
Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Universal Life Church have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
I don't want my change to be reverted again. I've explained that I merely corrected the url on Universal Life Church wiki page, This time, I reverted the reversion and also removed a section needing citation. I'd like it not to be reverted to the incorrect version. Again. Thank you.
 * Consider the following: what if the person who reverted your edit considers your preferred version to be incorrect, same as you consider theirs to be incorrect? Should they revert you again, to then be reverted by you once more, so they can then revert you again, rinse and repeat, until someone gets tired and moves on? Well, no. If an edit you made is challenged, the best course of action is to discuss its merits with the challenger, see WP:BRD. If you want your edits to stay, convince whoever reverts them that they're good edits, and they'll revert them no more, hopefully. 11:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You also removed maintenance and dispute tags from the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Universal Life Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is possible that you are both editing in good faith. In that case, as the bold-revert-discuss cycle directs, your next course of action is to discuss the situation on the talk page of the article. That way, more editors will see your rationale for your changes. Make sure to provide reliable sources—preferably published sources—that support your desired changes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I just saw your user page. As an ordained minister in ULC, you are deemed by Wikipedia's definitions to have a conflict of interest when it comes to any articles related to ULC. As backward as it may sound, we prefer for articles to be edited by people independent of the subject. It's hard for even the best-intentioned editors to stick to a neutral point of view on a topic that's close to them. That's one more reason to discuss the changes you want to make on the talk page: you can get buy-in and broad support from independent editors. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with...

I don't want my change to be reverted again. I've explained that I merely corrected the url on Universal Life Church wiki page, This time, I reverted the reversion and also removed a section needing citation. I'd like it not to be reverted to the incorrect version. Again. Thank you. - You also removed maintenance and dispute tags from the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC) - Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Universal Life Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Panda317 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Universal Life Church have been undone because they did not appear constructive. -

Panda317 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Going by the comments below I believe the issue has already been resolved. Some further remarks:
 * It's generally helpful to add your comments below the message you're replying to, and to indent the reply (by adding a leading colon, or two, or three...), so others can easily tell who said what. It's also a good idea to reply to someone else's comments where they were written, not to copy-paste them elsewhere, even if just in a separate section - for example, people are likely to check the sections where they have commented, but not necessarily others, so if you copy the comment into a new section and reply there, the original author might miss it.
 * The URL you corrected pointed to an archived copy of the website. I can't tell why that was done; possibly the website was out of order at some point and people thought the archived copy would be better than an error message. I can't see anything wrong with linking to the real website instead. Removing maintenance tags is another issue, however; when you have a conflict of interest, it's often a good idea not to remove the tags yourself but to leave it to independent editors to decide whether the issues have been resolved. The article talk page is a good location for an involved editor to propose changes to the article that might be seen as promotional or controversial, particularly if there's already an active discussion going on. Huon (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Panda317. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Universal Life Church, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   16:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply
I fixed the URL in the information box. However, you keep removing maintenance and dispute tags which should not be removed until the issues addressed. IF you're unsure, use the article's talkpage to get feedback before you make an edit. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply
Simply; Thank you! Panda317 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)