User talk:RebekahFaith73

June 2013
Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Phil Pringle because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Phil Pringle. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place " " on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Phil Pringle was changed by RebekahFaith73 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.973081 on 2013-06-19T05:54:29+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Phil Pringle
Hello, you edits to this article have been appropriately reverted by the automated Cluebot tool: Regards, Halsteadk (talk)
 * 1) You appear not to be using Wikipedia markup properly to insert contents and references. Copying the entire page into an offline editor such as Word as plain text, and then copying it back will ruin it - this is not an acceptable way of editing. See WP:HOWTOEDIT and WP:MOS.
 * 2) Your "references" all refer back to Phil Pringle's churches' own websites. References need to be third parties backing up your many claims to provide verifiability and evidence of notability. No-one can source themselves. Halsteadk (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) And getting to the most important point here, your first edit summary states "The whole page needed updating bu [sic] the General Manager of Phil Pringle's Social Media Content".  If you are this "General Manager" or represent this person, or have an official affiliation with the subject, then this is a conflict of interest, and you should carefully read WP:COI before making any further edits to this article. You give the impression that you manage his online content and therefore believe you have some ownership of this article, and this is very much the sort of thing that is wholly unacceptable on Wikipedia - indeed the tone of your edits which are exceptionally promotional rather backs this up.  If you consider there is something untrue in the article, or that it lacks neutrality, or that it lacks something important that can be backed up by third-party independent references, then I suggest you raise this on the article's talk page.