User talk:Scynthian

I undid your cut n paste move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give British-Israel-World Federation a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into The British-Israel-World Federation. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Scynthian. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 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. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of primary sources
See wp:primary. The sources that you used are quite questionable. Please use secondary sources per wp:reliable sources. Given your conflict of interest, you should use a wp:request edit. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Logo
You can upload the logo to en.wikipedia.com, but not commons:main page as a wp:nonfree. The image must be for one article only as a primary identifier. See the upload instructions. The image needs to be less than 100,000 pixels (316x316 for a square image) or smaller. (Just go wp:File Upload Wizard and click on "non-free" license. See wp:images too. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

More on the Logo
Regarding the logo, I noticed you put up a logo on British-Israel-World Federation. As it was a non-free image, it was removed from Commons. If you want to add it again, please see above. Please keep the conversation on this page. There are instructions at the top of my talk page. Or, you can see wp:ping. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Abraham's-Family-Tree.jpg
This image was deleted as it used an out of copyright license c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heritage of the Anglo-Saxon Race.jpg. So how is it your "own work" See: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abraham's-Family-Tree.jpg Jim1138 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Association of the Covenant People


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The Association of the Covenant People requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Reb1981 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Canadian British-Israel Association


A tag has been placed on The Canadian British-Israel Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly 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. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 07:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Scynthian. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with regular editing. Thank you for disclosing your role as an officer in the [[The British-Israel-World Federation.

You were given notice of our WP:COI guideline above, and of the WP:PAID editing policy. Both of those strongly urge editors not to edit directly where they have a COI. Yet looking at your edits to date you have been editing directly on topics related to that movement. Perhaps you don't understand why we ask this.... Would you please read the note below, and reply?

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

About the peer review step.... This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. And no author's name at the top of the page, so that readers know who wrote an article, and can read the article in light of who the authors are. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also often driven to try to make Wikipedia articles fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
 * a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
 * b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily -  and provide notice to the community of your request -  by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. That has already been made easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the relevant Talk pages (for example, at Talk: British Israelism)  there is a link at "click here" in that section --  if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.  You can also add a  tag to flag it for other editors to review.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the British Israelism article or any article relevant to that movement? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Greetings Jytdog. Yes, I am from the B.I.W.F., my goal on here is to help improve articles that don't fully contain the true explanations and information about the British-Israel belief. As some of the other new articles I have made of people, they are just a start of what I would like. I do respect the whole POV and I source my information.


 * The revert war we had was not just fully reverts, they were basically either re-wording or just more citations with the rest reverted with more information as back up. I have access to libraries of information on the topic of BI and I wish to ref those on the British-Israel article. I have chosen to declare my views but wish that people respect that, same as if I were to add information that I know personally myself also with references that others don't know and others oppose that topic, they should allow me to have my say in my own knowing and resources. I will from now post things more in the talk pages on suggestions, but still will edit things straight away depending on what.


 * I would also note that on the British-Israel article it should not be an article that criticizes the belief. Instead, it should list what is believed. Same with the editors that oppose the views, they should not just revert or deem references unworhty. Scynthian (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your reply, and for your straightforwardness.  Two things then...
 * When you write about adding things to Wikipedia based on " I know personally myself " or "references that others don't know", that makes me concerned that you are not aware of the WP:VERIFY policy and the WP:RS guideline.   Everything in Wikipedia needs to have a source, and that source needs to be publicly available, so that others can verify the content.   (If you are not familiar with all the policies and guidelines, you can have a look, if you like, at User:Jytdog/How, which is a brief-as-possible rundown of the key policies and guidelines for content and behavior.  Please also keep in mind WP:Controversial articles, which has a great section that advises editors to "raise source quality" on controversial issues (think "Times of London" not "Daily Mail" and if there is no Times of London-quality source, consider leaving it out).
 * As I noted above, people who try to edit directly where they have a COI tend to get themselves into trouble. This is why the policy and the guideline here strongly recommend that you do not edit directly.  Please don't do that, and please restrict yourself to the Talk page for existing articles, and to put new articles through WP:AFC.  Will you please do that?   Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If the British Israelism article only showed what is believed and not what other sources meeting our criteria say about the beliefs it would be a violation of our core policy at WP:NPOV. Adding material that you personally know is also against core polices, read WP:VERIFY and no original research. And whatever your sources, Wikipedia can never state in its own words that miracle healings have occurred, etc. Sources must also be reliably published - see WP:RS, and I doubt that everything Covenant publishes would meet those criteria. Doug Weller  talk 13:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of logos
If a logo is copyrighted, upload with a wp:fair use license with a Wikipedia only. Avoid uploading on Wikimedia commons. Per Fair use, the image size should be limited to 100k pixels. Jim1138 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please
Do not edit articles directly where you have a COI. Please hear me when I tell you that the community has little tolerance for disruptive editing from people with conflicts of interest, and you are very likely to be topic banned if you continue. Please save us all the drama, and please follow the COI guideline as we discussed. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You are ignoring the warnings about your COI, removing COI templates, and directly editing article where you have a COI
That's all been explained to you before. And yet you're back doing it. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)