User talk:Wdwrigh

Welcome
Hello Wdwrigh and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Nath1991 (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello, I'm Nath1991. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to International Churches of Christ has been undone because it did not appear constructive. 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. Nath1991 (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mojo Hand. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to International Churches of Christ seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Warning
You continue to violate the editing policies of Wikipedia and I highly recommend that you take some time to read the Four Illars to understand Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Reliable Sources (RS). You editing of the International Churches of Christ violate these principles and if you continue will be regarded as Vandalism and you will eventually get blocked or banned. Let me know over at my talk page if you have any questions. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 20)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joe Decker was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Wdwrigh/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Wdwrigh/sandbox Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Decker&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Wdwrigh/sandbox reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

joe deckertalk 21:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your AfC submission, more information.
First, while your AfC submission was not an "article draft", I understand that you are feeling frustrated with our processes and bureaucracy here, and why you attempted to raise the issue via AfC. I can't tell you whether or not you'll get a resolution to this that you're happy with, but I can at least point you at some resources and make some specific suggestions that may at least help you hear what we need, and/or why our needs may be different than your own. I'm not familiar with the particular organizations involved here, and I'm more specifically entirely unfamiliar with the specifics of Yearkley.

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, exists to summarize information published in sources that have been through a neutral, stringent editorial process in a way that allows readers to get a solid, if sometimes incomplete, summary of a subject. That is who we are, that is what we aim to do. This places some very real limitations on what can be said here, the essay Verifiability,_not_truth is relatively famous around here for outlining the issue.

Where I would start, if you are an editor who hasn't spent much time around our mazelike processes and procedures, is the Teahouse. WP:TEAHOUSE. Seriously, they are a great group of folks. They may make any of a number of suggestions. I take it that Yeakley may raise some unpleasant accusations (facts? it is not my place to say) about ICOC. One may be asking you if you have pointers to other resources which back those. Newspaper, magazine and book sources from publishers with a known track record for fact checking can be extremely helpful here. Another may be asking if you feel the editors are attempting to enforce a non-neutrally positive view of ICOC. They may direct you in that case to WP:NPOVN to attract the attention of editors interested in maintaining Wikipedai's goal of a neutral point of view. Or both, or they may have even more constructive suggestions.

It is my experience, however, that they'd be your best next stop. Editors experienced in making sense of our maze to new editors. Helpful, friendly. Please consider leaving a note at the Teahouse, I see that a link to it has already been automatically included on your talk page above. I wish you the best of luck. --joe deckertalk 21:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Problematic editing at International Churches of Christ
Hi there, your recent edits are problematic, since you keep using a disputed source, this Yeakley fellow, and you've added your personal commentary and complaints to the body of the article. If you want to discuss improvements to the article, the place to do that is on the article's talk page. If you want to express your opinion that the article reads like a marketing piece, the place to do that (and to pitch your suggestions for improvements) is on the article's talk page. If you want to comment on whether Yeakley should or should not be included in the article, the place to do that is on the article's talk page. Repeatedly adding a source that has been disputed is of no value to the project until a consensus has been established to do so, and consensus is determined through discussion, not through edit-warring.

Some of what you wrote here could have been presented on the article's talk page. However, setting up for a rant about the hypocrisy you perceive is totally unwarranted if you've done nothing to discuss the matter. (And your sandbox ramble should probably be blanked since it has a zero percent chance of becoming an article.) My recommendation as an experienced editor and an administrator at Wikipedia is that you open a discussion on the article's talk page, present your arguments for why you think Yeakley's opinions should be included, and wait for comments. You could also post a neutrally written invitation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard and invite people to the discussion a la: "Hi, there's a discussion at Talk:International Churches of Christ about whether or not the opinions of Flavil Yeakley can be included in the article. Your feedback would be appreciated." Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)