User talk:WikiMrBadger

Your submission at Articles for creation: Revelatory Theory of Atonement (June 9)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 0xDeadbeef 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Revelatory Theory of Atonement and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Revelatory Theory of Atonement, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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=Draft:Revelatory_Theory_of_Atonement Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:0xDeadbeef&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Revelatory_Theory_of_Atonement reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

0x Deadbeef 03:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thank you for the rapid response. Given the cautions I had expected it would take longer. Had I known I would have blocked time to react more quickly. But I (we - this is a group effort) have caught my breath and am going to start fixing the observations.
 * Some observations / questions:
 * - First, this is our first attempt to write an article. So we ask indulgence in advance if we misunderstand the process / culture.
 * - Second, we immediately understood the observation that we had not used a neutral tone. What we could use some further guidance on is just how deep the tone revision needs to go. Is it likely to be sufficient to rephrase statements with "it is claimed" or "the theory proposes" etc. Or do we need to go deeper into addressing the alternate viewpoints?
 * - Finally, is the tone the major objection or is this just the most obvious of possible red flags?
 * Again, thanks for the rapid response and thanks in advance for any suggestions or points you can supply. WikiMrBadger (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you an individual representing a group of people or is the group of people using this account for editing?
 * Response:
 * It is fine
 * If the article uses only biblical sources, then it could fail WP:GNG, our notability criteria for articles.
 * The latter. The draft reads like an essay to me. I hope you see the meaning of "encyclopaedic" as writing style that has a neutral tone and objectively explains the subject. 0x Deadbeef 10:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Kindly explain your statement
"But I (we - this is a group effort) have caught my breath and am going to start fixing the observations." The above raises questions as to whether your draft represents the work of one person or of more than one person. Also, what does "fixing the observations" refer to? Observations are something Wikipedia does not publish. We call it original research. Please answer promptly.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Christianity?
If your draft concerns Christianity, please make that clear. And, as it stands, your article is an essay for a theological journal. Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia, which is why we wikilink our unfamiliar terms.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

A very old but recently revived religious viewpoint
Quality Wikipedia articles don't just tell the world about your point of view, they give context. For instance:


 * Who first came up with this viewpoint?
 * When did the "theory" arise?
 * How did it evolve?
 * How does it differ from standard doctrine?
 * What was published on the subject at that time?
 * When did the recent revival begin?
 * What triggered the recent revival?
 * Who revived it and what publications demonstrate this?
 * What school of religious thought is associated with this "theory"?
 * What, if any, Christian denominations care about this "theory"?
 * Summarize what neutral theological scholars have said about this "theory".

These days, Wikipedia is pretty infertile ground upon which to sow advocacy, in case you haven't noticed. If you want to broadcast your Good Word, there are other venues available, though they might cost money.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It is my belief that our extensive references are properly formatted.
Mr. Badger, it's past time you explained to your fellow Wikipedia editors what group you are fronting for. Clearly, you are not acting on your own, and may only be an acolyte or intern of some larger group, which you must clearly declare if you intend to edit any further on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a term for what you are doing here, and it's Single-purpose account. Your purpose appears to be against the purposes of Wikipedia, attempting to spread your theological ideas via an objective, neutral, rigorous encyclopedia. As an example, the RTA is not something one can Google for more information, indicating that the term is likely not being written about. Googling the synonyms you have given yields more religious gobbledygook similar to what you have written. I recommend that you approach Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard and ask them whether your draft contains anything of interest to their project.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement (November 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Rusalkii were:

The comment the reviewer left 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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=Draft:Cosmic_Conflict_View_of_Atonement Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rusalkii&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Cosmic_Conflict_View_of_Atonement reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Does not the very first footnote help address the problem of it being referenced in other places?
 * Specifically:
 * This theory of atonement has also been called the Larger View and the Trust-Healing Model. Some notable adherents of the cosmic conflict view who have called it by these names are Graham Maxwell, Daniel Duda and Jon Paulien (Pineknoll Publications, Conversations About God, and Pineknoll Biographies) and Dr. Tim Jennings (Come and Reason Ministries), respectively, and by critic Norman Gulley (1992) A Look at the Larger View of Calvary: An Evaluation of the Debate in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Many proponents of this view merely refer to it by its “cosmic conflict” or “great controversy” perspective (see Jonathan Gallagher, Dr. Ken Hart, Ty Gibson, and Richard Duane Smith). Although a significant subgroup of Seventh-day Adventists holds this view of atonement, it is not a formally recognized doctrine of the church. The Seventh-day Adventist church does, however, teach a great controversy that was espoused by its prophetess Ellen G. White in her book The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, on which the cosmic conflict view of atonement is based. This specific understanding of the atonement has not yet been settled as a matter of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. WikiMrBadger (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement
Hello, WikiMrBadger. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement


Hello, WikiMrBadger. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)