User talk:User101234

April 2018
Hello, I'm MusicalKnight. I noticed that you recently removed content from Onething conference without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MusicalKnight (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Onething conference, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. MusicalKnight (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Onething conference, you may be blocked from editing. 76.29.200.234 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am not attempting to vandalize Wikipedia. The information that is published here regarding the International House of Prayer is inaccurate. I am trying to rectify the inaccurate information.


 * We've got a citation to NPR which shows what the media is reporting, and we've got a citation to Bickle's publications showing what he's saying. Which of those statements is incorrect? And why are you not fixing the statement to agree with the source? —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Onething conference 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. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help! The information in the NPR article makes an assertion that the International House of Prayer is affiliated with the NAR, which is in fact incorrect. The NPR article only claims that this affiliation exists, the International House of Prayer denies its affiliation with this movement. Furthermore, the link to Mike Bickle's book shows no specific statement regarding their affiliation with the NAR. It only links to a book published in 1996. I have followed the International House of Prayer and have heard Mike Bickle to say on numerous occasions that despite what the media asserts, the International House of Prayer is in no way connected organizationally or theologically with the NAR. Thus, I feel this faulty information should be removed from Wikipedia.User101234 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for your help. If I can get a written statement from the International House of Prayer confirming my claims that they are indeed not associated with the NAR movement, can this erroneous information be removed? Thank you.User101234 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That's what the article currently states: NPR asserts there's an affiliation, but the IHP denies it. Is there a published denial by Bickle that could be cited instead of the book? Remember that WP:NPOV requires an article to contain a complete perspective of the subject, including assessments by independent parties. There are a number of other organizations that have similar statements (the media/commentators say X, but the subject refutes) in them. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A statement directly from IHP is not an admissible source. The statement needs to have been published somewhere. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Can it be published from Mike Bickle, instead of just the International House of Prayer as an organization? Where does a statement of this nature need to be published in order to change the information on the Wikipedia page? Thank you again.User101234 (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)